NOT Gun Control

[Aguila Blanca]

Making the argument that a law might not be effective doesn't hold water; it's the same as saying we shouldn't bother posting speed limits for roads because you violated one on your way to work this morning.

Except that when the law severely restricts one of the citizens' basic constitutional and human rights, the law needs to offer a LOT more than "It might work, and we have to do something so let's try it." There is no constitutional right to operate a vehicle on a public road. Remember, in order for a law affecting a constitutional right to be constitutional, it has to be narrowly tailored to achieve the desired result with the minimum effect on the populace.

 

[5whiskey]

So numerous aspects of local and federal government drop the ball on repeated occasions, but we want to turn background checks from the reactive system to a proactive check that equates to that of a security clearance? With the same government that has already flubbed on numerous occasions in charge? No thanks. Did you realize that ted Kennedy was placed on the no-fly list because of a clerical error? Numerous other documented cases like that as well.

Yes I'm aware that private industry frequently does a social media "background" but let's acknowledge that private industry isn't violating a constitutional right by refusing to hire you. Also, AI and algorithms only go so far. To date, they can't verify that "John Baker's" Facebook page is the same John Baker that is applying for this particular firearm purchase permit with absolute veracity in every case. What if "John Baker" doesn't even have a Facebook or Instagram? Not to mention it WILL cost if you actually introduce due process and not just an algorithm. I'm experienced with background checks as well, I do preemployment investigations when assigned by my agency. AI can do a lot, but there has to be a human confirming the data and making judgement calls.

And no, I am not a blind "pry them from my cold dead hands" guy. I would be OK with a bump stock ban. Even though many of my peers here disagree with me.

 

[NateKirk]

Aquila,

The speed limit was only an example. The problem here is that people are abusing one constitutional/ human right to violate another constitutional/ human right of someone else.

The conflict in this case is right to bear arms vs. right to life. One is being abused in order to violate the other. Assume both rights are perfectly equal. There is a problem that needs to be addressed. Which right is the only one that can be limited of those two in order to help alleviate the problem?

I'll say it again, the bar for firearm ownership has to be set higher. And to quote someone from earlier:

If we do not come up with a compromise, a set of "solutions" will be rammed down our throats. I suspect those solutions will include a renewal of the AWB and then some. Better start thinking and coming up with some palatable compromises.

I'll bet Custer didn't believe in compromise either.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. This seems to be the rut we are stuck in when it comes to gun control proposals

.

Or, this is how we end up doing nothing because somebody in goverment screwed up. Aint perfect? Then its not going to work. See? Same arguments keep festerig and the outcome is doing nothing.

AguilaBlanca
Having job does not mean the people were subjected to a pre-employment check. Hell, Kushner still doesn't have a security clearance. Lots of employers are lackadaisical about checking references etc.

Pre-employment background checks are more granular, and can reveal more than the NICS check. We aren't getting the lowdown on some gunbuyers.

 

[DaleA]

Well there have been over 1100 views of this thread as I am posting.

I don't know if the moderators have been pulling posts or not.

So far I think every member here should be just a little bit proud that we can discuss these issues. This is of course a 'gun forum' and folk that mention limiting 'gun rights' obviously won't get a warm happy response to their opinions but nobody has gotten too upset yet and this is a very, very sensitive topic.

I'm saying I appreciate the intelligence and politeness being shown here.

I go out and read the 'main stream media' stories and pro or anti when I read the comments they are ruined by folks calling names, making ridiculous claims and hurling personal attacks at one another. It's like walking down a street and seeing litter, garbage and trash.

I like this site. The moderators can take a LOT of credit for it and so can the members.

 

[zukiphile]

Bit by bit we have been having our rights slowly taken away."

How so?

The sphere of freedom pertaining to arms has constricted over the prior century.

Prior to the NFA, one could mail order or buy from a store what ever the small arms market had to offer. Following the NFA, one needed a tolerance for paper work and money for the government stamp.

Prior to the GCA, one could buy a firearm at the hardware or department store the same way he could buy a chainsaw or a snow blower. After the the GCA that market was federalised and regulated so that a buyer could only purchase a new arm from a federal licensee.

For a decade, there were a number of products available in the rifle market that could no longer be purchased new under the AWB.

Those are the big ones, but there are a number of other state imposed restrictions like waiting periods, ammunition restrictions, state lists of approved arms and effective prohibitions (DC) and legal prohibitions (Morton Grove).

Each of these was a step in the political drive toward restriction. Except for DC and Morton Grove, each time that political process was set forth as a compromise position, a solution that would preserve a vestige of the prior freedom of behavior.

By their nature, these political compromises aren't solutions, but reflect the state of politics in the moment of their creation. Each step gets us a bit more used the idea that each new silly regulation is something to which we must adjust, and confirms a habit of adjustment to silly restrictions. In that sort of regulatory stew, people ask questions like "Why do you need X?" "Who should be allowed to have X?" as if they weren't absurd questions to pose about a constitutional right.

The sphere of freedom can become so constricted that a constitutional right can be very heavily regulated and the market quite limited so that the right itself comes to be seen as describing such a small amount of freedom that a person could know all of the above and still ask how the next proposed restriction shrinks any right.

 

[NateKirk]

Prior to the NFA, one could mail order or buy from a store what ever the small arms market had to offer. Following the NFA, one needed a tolerance for paper work and money for the government stamp.

Prior to the GCA, one could buy a firearm at the hardware or department store the same way he could buy a chainsaw or a snow blower. After the the GCA that market was federalised and regulated so that a buyer could only purchase a new arm from a federal licensee.

This isn't an entirely bad thing. Would you you feel comfortable if a convicted felon could still walk into a hardware store and purchase a real machine gun, or order one through a Sears catalog? Many would not. There was a time when that was perfectly legal. I think the benefit of not allowing this anymore outweighs the "inconvenience" of paperwork. So one has to wait a bit to get their new binky; so what?

The nature of a right changes over time to account for changing situations and new realizations about the side effects of that right. Like I said earlier, this is a debate between the right to bear arms vs. the right to live. One is being abused to violate the other, and only one of those two rights can be restricted in order to help alleviate the problem. The bar for ownership should be set higher.

 

[Rothdel]

I'm going to admit I have not read this whole thread. I did read large chunks of it but honestly I did not read every word.

I apologize for that but have felt the need to say this somewhere so going to take the opportunity to do this.

What happened in FL and at other schools is tragic and should not have have to be witnessed or endured by anyone. With that being said I don't think any of the discussion that occurs is about the loss of life or saving children. This is simply about fear that certain groups latch on to and others are driven to champion. If we as a society were really concerned about saving children we would be talking with outrage about several other far greater impacts on childhood mortality.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/15/school-bus-safety-statistics/72318198/

http://safehavensinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Relative_Risks_of_Death_in_US_K-12_Schools.pdf

Transportation related deaths are far more likely to kill a school aged child yet there is no gnashing of teeth or flailing of fists over that. Why?

Hell in some years lightening strikes killed more kids than firearms yet again where is the anger and demands for playground safety?

I am sure there are some good people out there that really do care about protecting children. Unfortunately I think the vast majority of people demanding increased gun laws/bans are simply scared of an intimate object and latch on to public concern to facilitate their own fears. If this debate was really about protecting children guns would come much later after we tackle the real cause of the majority of student mortality.

 

[ATN082268]

This isn't an entirely bad thing. Would you you feel comfortable if a convicted felon could still walk into a hardware store and purchase a real machine gun, or order one through a Sears catalog? Many would not. There was a time when that was perfectly legal. I think the benefit of not allowing this anymore outweighs the "inconvenience" of paperwork. So one has to wait a bit to get their new binky; so what?

The nature of a right changes over time to account for changing situations and new realizations about the side effects of that right. Like I said earlier, this is a debate between the right to bear arms vs. the right to live. One is being abused to violate the other, and only one of those two rights can be restricted in order to help alleviate the problem. The bar for ownership should be set higher.

I think you have to ask yourself, how a given gun control law makes things better or safer. If that can't be quantified or the benefits don't outweigh the costs, then that gun control law needs to go...It seems that after a mass shooting, the default answer is more gun control even though there were already a number of gun control laws on the books. How does adding another gun control law make things better or safer?

 

[zukiphile]

This isn't an entirely bad thing. Would you you feel comfortable if a convicted felon could still walk into a hardware store and purchase a real machine gun, or order one through a Sears catalog?

Convicted felons can lose any number of constitutional rights because as the result of an adjudication that satisfies due process requirements.

Who really thinks that my feeling of comfort is a real standard for the exercise of an explicit constitutional right?

The nature of a right changes over time to account for changing situations and new realizations about the side effects of that right. Like I said earlier, this is a debate between the right to bear arms vs. the right to live. One is being abused to violate the other, and only one of those two rights can be restricted in order to help alleviate the problem. The bar for ownership should be set higher.

Higher than what? Higher than an adult citizen with no criminal record?

A right that changes over time according to the momentary whim of a legislature is not a constitutional right in our system.

It is not correct that the 2d Am. is the only right in the balance. As suggested in post 39, revision of 1st Am. rights would be very helpful in preventing murder mimcry. 4th Am. rights stand in the way of law enforcement who could raid the home of potential murderers, so that needs to "change" as well. 5th Am. protection just make it more difficult to get dangerous loons convicted and behind bars, so we can all feel more comfortable.

Recognising the need for a wide range of "changes" in our rights is certainly worth feeling as we've done something about this rare crime, right?

 

[NateKirk]

I think you have to ask yourself, how a given gun control law makes things better or safer. If that can't be quantified or the benefits don't outweigh the costs, then that gun control law needs to go...It seems that after a mass shooting, the default answer is more gun control even though there were already a number of gun control laws on the books. How does adding another gun control law make things better or safer?

One could also ask themselves what doing nothing does to make things better or safer. Obviously it does nothing.

Setting a higher bar for firearm ownership would make things safer as it would require more of an investment in terms of time, money, and training (mental effort) that will help to deter the curious but dangerously ignorant hobbyist, criminals, the mentally unstable and incompetent, etc. A more stringent and deeper background check will help to further weed out those who probably shouldn't have access to lethal weapons.
People use guns to kill each other because they are convenient not just effective. Requiring more of a shooting education and investment in order to access firearms legally, will make them less convenient. Someone will make the argument that people are going to just kill each other anyway, even if they have to use a different method; that is besides the point. The point is that firearms will be less convenient to the unstable making mass shootings less feasible, and by making these compromises the firearms community will be protected.

"Setting a higher bar" should entail a firearm owners license with a waiting period of a short time, a more thorough and stringent background check, and the mandatory attendance of a class designed to teach one how to safely and accurately use a firearm. This will all be funded by licensing fees. One will make the argument that they shouldn't have to be charged to exercise their right, however by this logic, the government should supplement their ammunition costs.

 

[zukiphile]

Setting a higher bar for firearm ownership would make things safer as it would require more of an investment in terms of time, money, and training (mental effort) that will help to deter the curious but dangerously ignorant hobbyist, criminals, the mentally unstable and incompetent, etc. A more stringent and deeper background check will help to further weed out those who probably shouldn't have access to lethal weapons.

"Setting a higher bar" should entail a firearm owners license with a waiting period of a short time, a more thorough and stringent background check, and the mandatory attendance of a class designed to teach one how to safely and accurately use a firearm. This will all be funded by licensing fees. One will make the argument that they shouldn't have to be charged to exercise their right, however by this logic, the government should supplement their ammunition costs.

If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point. The incompetent already can't purchase from a federal licensee.

Are curious hobbyists a big public safety issue? Which school shooter was a greater danger because he didn't know how to use arms safely and accurately? How would a short waiting period have deterred the Parkland killer?

 

[NateKirk]

Are curious hobbyists a big public safety issue?

Ask anyone who has ever taken a CPL course or worked in a gun shop how many dangerously unskilled, untrained, and ignorant people they see everyday.

Which school shooter was a greater danger because he didn't know how to use arms safely and accurately? How would a short waiting period have deterred the Parkland killer?

I was editing my post when you posted. See above under "convenience." Or I'll just quote myself:
"People use guns to kill each other because they are convenient not just effective. Requiring more of a shooting education and investment in order to access firearms legally, will make them less convenient. Someone will make the argument that people are going to just kill each other anyway, even if they have to use a different method; that is besides the point. The point is that firearms will be less convenient to the unstable making mass shootings less feasible, and by making these compromises the firearms community will be protected."

If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point

The "arms" we are talking about are require ammunition, therefore are included in the right to bear arms. By your logic it would be perfectly constitutional to ban the import, manufacture, and sale of ammunition because they are not "arms."

 

[zukiphile]

Are curious hobbyists a big public safety issue?

Ask anyone who has ever taken a CPL course or worked in a gun shop how many dangerously unskilled, untrained, and ignorant people they see everyday.

That isn't responsive to the question posed. I see ignorant people everyday as well. That doesn't make curious hobbyists a public safety issue.

Which school shooter was a greater danger because he didn't know how to use arms safely and accurately? How would a short waiting period have deterred the Parkland killer?

I was editing my post when you posted. See above under "convenience."

Your convenience argument is not responsive to the questions posed. The candid answer is that no school shooter was a greater danger for lack of safe arms handling or poor accuracy. You may also over-estimate the impact of convenience.

There is no great convenience in hacking someone up with a machete, but that didn't deter many Rwuandans. It is much more convenient to rent a truck and drive it through a crowd. Making firearms a proxy for conventience is likely an error.

If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point

The "arms" we are talking about are require ammunition, therefore are included in the right to bear arms. By your logic it would be perfectly legal to ban the import, manufacture, and sale of ammunition because they are not "arms."

That is incorrect. Firearms require ammunition, but not ammunition free to the shooter.

The 1st Am. doesn't require the government to furnish free paper. Yet, prohibiting paper to be used to publish text wold run afoul of the 1st Am. by making a free (free of congressional control, not free of cost) press impossible.

You are proposing the equivalent of a license to publish a book or newspaper, a charge for the exercise of the right rather than the tools to exercise it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Mildly sensible article about making decisions actually based on empirical analyses.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/18/whats-missing-from-the-gun-debate-217022?lo=ap_f1

 

[NateKirk]

I can't debate with someone who misdirects the exchange by deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of the opposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Kirk
Quote:
If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point
The "arms" we are talking about are require ammunition, therefore are included in the right to bear arms. By your logic it would be perfectly legal to ban the import, manufacture, and sale of ammunition because they are not "arms."
That is incorrect. Firearms require ammunition, but not ammunition free to the shooter.

The 1st Am. doesn't require the government to furnish free paper. Yet, prohibiting paper to be used to publish text wold run afoul of the 1st Am. by making a free (free of congressional control, not free of cost) press impossible.

You just proved my point.

I see ignorant people everyday as well. That doesn't make curious hobbyists a public safety issue

It does when they have unsecured guns in houses with children or teenagers and don't know any better, can't safely operate the firearm, are issued a CPL and are expected to defend themselves without endangering the public despite the fact they can't hit a piece of paper from 5 yards. Many buy guns without having any interest in or though of in the responsibility required in having a lethal weapon around. This is what I'm talking about.

The candid answer is that no school shooter was a greater danger for lack of safe arms handling or poor accuracy.

That was not my argument. My argument is that requiring training and a greater investment makes firearms less available and convenient to those that are to use them for simply for nefarious purposes.

There is no great convenience in hacking someone up with a machete, but that didn't deter many Rwuandans. It is much more convenient to rent a truck and drive it through a crowd. Making firearms a proxy for convenience is likely an error.

Many mass shootings are not about the act but inflating the killer. Many tie firearms into their ego (as I believe the latest perpetrator did) and are more inclined to use a firearm to carry out the act.

Another important point is that the people who carry out mass shooting would rather I'm sure be remembered as a killer or a murderer, the label the gun provides, rather than as a psychopath or terrorist, the label that bombs, trucks, machetes, etc, provides.

There needs to be a higher bar set for firearm ownership. It may be slightly inconvenient but the benefits would outweigh the cost, the cost being convenience, and the benefits being a more educated and safe firearm community and less access to weapons for the ignorant and dangerous.

 

[zukiphile]

That's an interesting article to me because of the ambiguity.

It is the same with gun violence: We need to find interventions that will both stop the violence and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Taken literally, this is no threat to any constitutional right. The underlined text is a barrier, not part of a balancing test to elide the right. Yet in the same paragraph he writes,

To answer the question, we also have to measure the degree to which each intervention infringes on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Only rigorous, objective and well-designed scientific research can find the answer.

Here, we are just discussing how much of the right must vanish.

At it's core, Rosenberg;s thesis is problematic to the dregree it seeks a solution to a problem of underlying values and legal rights in statistical measurement. Some questions don't lend themselves to statistical resolution. Beating a child with a belt may prompt greater compliance with rules, but we don't condone it anyway. Literacy testing may provide a less easily manipulated pool of voters, but we've made a value judgment that those will not be used.

That's not an argument for ignorance, but for distinguishing between result measurement and civil values.

 

[zukiphile]

This will all be funded by licensing fees. One will make the argument that they shouldn't have to be charged to exercise their right, however by this logic, the government should supplement their ammunition costs.

Emphasis added. Here, you've equated a fee to the government for the mere exercise of the right to the price of the materiel involved in the exercise of the right.

If there were a right to free ammunition, that would be a good point

This is intended to illustrate that since there isn't a right to free ammunition, it is distinguishable from a right to arms, the right you would license for a fee.

The "arms" we are talking about are require ammunition, therefore are included in the right to bear arms. By your logic it would be perfectly legal to ban the import, manufacture, and sale of ammunition because they are not "arms."

That is incorrect. Firearms require ammunition, but not ammunition free to the shooter.

The 1st Am. doesn't require the government to furnish free paper. Yet, prohibiting paper to be used to publish text wold run afoul of the 1st Am. by making a free (free of congressional control, not free of cost) press impossible.

You just proved my point.

If your point is that people who value civil liberties will object to having to pay for or forfeit their rights, I would be happy to have proven the point.

If your point is as you set it forth above, that the logic that forbids a fee to practice a right also requires the government to provide the materiel to exercise the right, then your point had less merit.

I can't debate with someone who misdirects the exchange by deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of the opposition.

I hope you see that rather than "deliberately misunderstanding" your point, I had illustrated how it may incorporate some shortcomings. EDITED TO ADD: That isn't offered as an affront to you personally. Neither of us is our argument or conclusion.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Gun-violence restraining orders

I think we are in agreement that nut-jobs should have have access to guns. What better group of individuals to see the warning signs than family members and those closest to the disturbed individual?

Link to article from the National Review (a conservation publication) discussing GVROs.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NateKirk and Colorado Redneck keep linking increased restrictions to basic ownership.

The federal government has been adding restrictions to gun ownership for almost a hundred years. If they just created a federal license that removed even the most minor of those restrictions (NFA taxes, purchasing across state lines, etc.), gun owners would line up to voluntarily license and register themselves and slap each other on the back for the big win in gun rights. You could achieve 90% of what these proposed expanded background checks would do and gun owners would clamor to do it.

Who has licensed and trained more gun owners than any gun control legislation ever has in the history of the world? The NRA via concealed carry licensing. In return for accepting training and licensing requirements, gun owners got something in return.

But at its core, the gun control legislation proposed in Congress isn't about that. It is cultural warfare to punish crimethink. That's why it is important that all gun control legislation not just take away existing rights; but do it in a way to force submission. It is why gun control people hate concealed carry even though it does all the things they claim to want in common sense gun control (deeper background checks, licensing, mandatory training).

I'm not sure if NateKirk and ColoradoRedneck are drinking so deeply of the koolaid that they don't even recognize there is another way or they just agree that gun ownership is double plus ungood. It is hard to tell when NateKirk considers existing CHLs who are licensed and required to undergo mandatory training as a problem,

But an actual compromise involves both sides getting something. Give me half of what you got and I won't take it all isn't a compromise. That's the opening line of a robbery and there is only one valid response to such demands.