First, I'm very pro 2nd amendment. Although I don't own many guns and don't really need/want a big collection.
In the opinion of those who follow this much closer than I do...What gun laws need to be better enforced, modified, or added to prevent the wrong people from legally obtaining guns?
Banning the guns the bad guys already have is not the answer to me, but I'm open to reading those opinions as well. I ask this not as a debate of pro or anti gun. But specifically as to what laws may help.
It would help if people weren't worried about being branded as Islamaphobes by the federal government. Once again we find that the earmarks and warning signs were present, but ignored, just as they were with the San Bernadino and Boston Marathon plots.
Your post highlights the real problem: who are "the wrong people"?
We can build a system to make it hard on them once we know who they are, but how do we know who they are? We almost always find out after the fact that people knew the person was either radical or insane or some combination of both, but if nothing gets reported and there are no laws to deal with it then they never get identified as a "wrong person".
The solution of the anti-gun groups is simple: restrict everyone's rights and access, and that will cover it.
the problem with that is two fold. First the idea of restricting everyone's rights is antithetical to the American belief system and our Constitution, and second it wont' really work b/c there are just too many other options and ways to commit these horrible crimes. We might make it slightly harder but we won't make it anything like impossible.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
With the San Bernadino and Boston Marathon, you would be very right. In those killings you had very devout, though misguided, Muslims attempting to fight a holy war. With this one though, I discussed this a bit more in the other thread, the picture emerging is not that of an Islamic terrorist with a misguided sense of devotion to Islam. The picture emerging is a gay man in denial with psychopathic tendencies that latched on to any and ALL Islamic terrorist groups because they validated his self-hatred and psychopathic feelings for others. He was not a practicing Muslim (he didn't pray five times a day, drank alcohol, ate pork), he actively used gay hook-up apps, visited this same club he shot up multiple times, his ex-wife even said he was gay. Many are now viewing his claims of ISIS affiliation (along with his previous claims of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda affiliation) as not the traditional sleeper cell affiliation, but more the loser looking to attach himself to a movement to draw more attention to himself. ISIS of course will use him as a propaganda piece, but there are no signs of any external planning or ISIS involvement at all.Originally Posted by KeithKSR
How would we build it?
I'm not in favor of any of these ideas today, but facts and stats could change my mind. Real facts, not mainstream media facts.
Age limit for certain guns?
More in depth background checks?
Longer wait time?
Medical history?
Great point. It takes a level of precognition as to who the wrong people are that we just don't possess. What is chilling and frustrating is that this guy was interviewed and watched by the FBI and I guess DHS too. He was vetted and went on his way even working in a position where firearms are part of the job.
I don't know what to do. I really don't think banning the guns will solve the problems. The second amendment should not be abolished or have more restrictions imposed.
Killers find a way.
Mateen's violent story has many layers. But a terrorist sympathizer (he celebrated in some way at school while watching 9/11 unfold on tv) will find a way to do violence.
Was it Doc that mentioned that McVeigh used fertilizer for the massive bomb in Oklahoma City? They will find a way. In the UK someone used a big machete to kill folks on the street. Bad guys will find a way.
Throughout our history we have learned that our individual religious freedom is contingent upon allowing others the same right to religious freedom. That is at the heart of democracy; this willingness to live and let live.
We have not been perfect in this by any stretch but we strive to be more inclusive and tolerant.
The Islamic world must regain that level of tolerance or the world will be in a dark age of epic proportions.
I understand that we have not wanted to paint this struggle as a battle of faiths. If for no other reason there are more Muslims than any other religion in the world. Sheer numbers if we go that route we are the underdog.
But we must come to realize that any religion or ideology that does not allow others to exist peacefully is an enemy of freedom and the United States.
New York Tines has a big article on the "AR-15 Loved and Reviled" and headline states it was used in Orlando...
Except the shooter didnt use an AR-15 or a rifle that had a single component in common with an AR-15.
It's this "freedom to print lies of the press" that keeps us from rational debate.
What did he use? Last I heard it was an AR but that was Sunday. I've not had the chance the follow this one the last two days.
I thought he used an AR 15 what did he use. I read he had a side arm and a AR 15.
I googled it. The Sig? If so, I can see why the media wouldn't know the difference. All guns that are black in color is an AR
If what I googled is correct. I would expect the media to call it an "AR style weapon". IMO their attempt to label any semi-automatic as dangerous.
Sig-Sauer
Any of those Sig Sauer AR-15 variants are fairly high dollar items, and when properly maintained are very reliable. That isn't a cheap knock-off AR-15 made by just anyone, it's a higher end rifle made by a prestigious firearms manufacturer.
MOLON LABE!
I'm watching your question with great interest. We have some of the smartest people around here. I'd love to see the collection brainstorm and come up with a conclusion that helps. My preference would be a conclusion that helps without regard to removing all freedoms and violating the Constitution, but I'm even interested in seeing the possible alternatives that may help that do that as well.
Door-to-door confiscation and destruction of all weapons, criminalization of the sale of all firearms, etc. would have an affect over time of some amount. The cost to do that would be intolerable to almost all, I'd think. So something short of that--what are they?
Great questions.
And from my perspective, I myself am not really sure what else can be done to protect ourselves any better aside from surveilling any mosques and Muslims that are suspected of being jihadists. THAT is the best possible way to find out. Sometimes, you just have to stick your nose in the air and decide if the smell is good or bad.
I know that may not be the most appealing approach, but how else are you going to be able to find out if you don't do an actual surveillance/investigation.
MOLON LABE!
Too broad a category IMO. If one is talking terrorism, it really has nothing to do with Gun Laws. Terrorist will use any methods to kill. If guns are available, that is what they use. If not then they use airplanes, or fertilizer or anthrax or nuclear waste, etc.... Gun laws and terrorism are only slightly related. Guns are an infinitesimally small aspect of terrorism, so small that they bear no relevance except to our president and those who want to use any means to further their gun control agenda.
For me personally, gun ownership and usage should be confined to only responsible adults, in the same way that other inherently dangerous items are restricted. Cigarettes are less dangerous and can ONLY be legally used by adults. Driving a car is less dangerous and can ONLY legally be done by adults. The list goes on, so going back to the original post, when you ask "What gun laws need to be better enforced, modified, or added to prevent the wrong people from legally obtaining guns?" My simple reply is one must be an ADULT to own and use. If the age of adulthood is 18 (the age one is considered old enough to vote) then so be it, or 21 (the age to consume alcohol) the so be it. Many will disagree and that's fine. I'll say right now I have ZERO intention of fighting that battle because in my mind sticking a gun is a 6 year olds hands is never a safe thing to do regardless of how its spun. Granted this pertains to accidental child shootings but also school shootings.
Once an adult, the second amendment gives every law abiding american citizen the right to own a gun and the government can't take that away. if you are a convicted felon, you lose that right. If you are not an american citizen, you don't have that right. I'm not in favor of psychological or other "medical" testing to get a gun as that is a) too invasive and b) too subjective. The government doesn't need to know my medical status and its too ripe for abuse.
I'm not in favor of any limit on gun capacity. If you want to own a machine gun, what do I care? However I believe the concealed means concealed. If you have a concealed carry and that weapon isn't concealed, you broke the law. You enter a store with an unconcealed gun, and you have a concealed permit, YOU broke the law. Unconcealed means somebody/anybody can see it. Its that simple of a definition. And IMO that should be a FELONY whereby you become a convicted felon and forever lose your right to own a gun. (oh, and lets not fool ourselves. If you get nailed on this, you will be able to buy your way out as we are not suggesting changing the court system. Cash still buys justice).
If you commit a crime with a gun, the penalty is STIFF. Mandatory 5 years in jail. Additional penalties can include losing your right to vote, your right to own a gun for the remainder of your lifetime, you forfeit your benefits of citizenship (Social security, etc...).
Last edited by Doc; 06-14-2016 at 05:20 PM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Things like age limits and wait times don't focus on the question of who to restrict, they just restrict everyone in hopes we catch some at risk people in the net. To me that's not focusing on the problem. Also there's no reason to think either of those would stop anyone, as none of these guys are minors and they seem to carry on their insanity for months if not years. Waiting periods are to prevent impulsive things, these people are cold and plotting.
There are only 3 options:
1) Start collecting guns. banning "new sales" won't do it, there are already far too many guns, including 'assault' rifles, in circulation. it will raise the price but money doesn't seem to be an impediment to these people. The only way to really restrict access is for them to not be available to anyone, period. That means rounding them up. Both sides know this, which is why the Left wants to start down that path and why the Right absolutely refuses.
(btw, this option won't work, b/c there are too many substitute means to commit these crimes, but to eliminate just sales of certain guns for sure is meaningless)
2) Get way more intrusive about how we identify people as threats and limit their rights based on that identification. ideally we'd do it with a judicial review or at least appeal, but the only way to lock it down is to put people on a list and then ban them from buying guns, publicly or privately. That may require "universal background checks", where all sales are illegal unless verified by a database check.
This is deeply disturbing to those who value individual freedom, but option 1 is to eliminate the means, option two is to effectively eliminate the motive by eliminating those so motivated. But this too is a dangerous and problem fraught path.
3) Live with it. if we can't take away the means (and btw we can't b.c pipe bombs and other IEDs are proven worldwide to be super effective and easily produced and anyone who watches the news should see guns are not the only way to do this), and we can't just weed these people out before they do something horrible, then the only alternative is to tweak things the best we can and accept that once in a while there will be a tragedy like this one.
Personally I vote for a lot of emphasis on option 2 and a sprinkling of option 3, b/c the truth is that there is no way to prevent all of these attacks, so we have to balance the risk against just how much liberty we're willing to give up for our security.
And in the end that is what this is, a fundamental question of liberty versus security. You could walk the streets of Moscow during the soviet reign in relative safety, but you had to give up all your liberty.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 06-14-2016 at 05:32 PM.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Changing gun laws over an act of terrorism makes no sense. It's a red herring argument.
Darrell, while the age requirement may seem reasonable it fails to account for the numerous youth hunters that take to the woods and fields each year. Each year 1/3 to 1/2 of my 7th grade students will hunt deer/turkeys/squirrels/rabbits/etc. Nearly all have taken hunters's safety courses and passed a range test, as required by state law. I'd trust them with a firearm more than I would 99.9% of the media, who seem largely clueless when it comes to firearms.
As for what I would do, here it is, the ultimate pro gun / anti gun compromise:
1) Pass a constitutional amendment making it blunt clear that every American has a constitutional right to own firearms as part of their natural right to defend themselves and their property. I'd like to see it worded to specifically cover everything but full auto guns. It must specify that the government has no right to track that ownership long term but may impose restrictions on those adjudicated to be a threat to others. I'd have to massage the wording a lot, b/c this is an amendment, not a law, and thus must be broad and brief and clear.
The goal here is to make it clear that the restrictions I will then suggest will NOT be part of a slippery slope to bans and confiscation, b/c we will end the ability to get around the 2nd amendment with interpretations like the "militia" loophole. We need to reassure those who believe guns are a key part of our self defense and our defense against tyranny that they the right will not be slowly subverted by a slippery slope of gun restrictions.
2) Once that is in place and incontrovertable, we will then make it illegal to sell or transfer a firearm without a background check. That information, like now, is to be held only for a brief period and no permanent records of transfers can be kept by any government entity, but all transfers must be approved by the background check process.
3) just as we now can restrict gun ownership based on restraining orders or domestic violence convictions (which in some cases can be a pretty low standard), we probably need a category to deal with terrorists. this is VERY dangerous b/c I agree w Pedro this President has already branded people on the right as terrorists who have no violent intentions, but I think we need a legal category or other expansion so we can judicially rule someone a threat to others.
Arguably we may already have that framework. people can be ruled a threat to others now in court, and even involuntarily committed. We would need to apply the threat framework to those who have knowingly preached violence against others. If you have a youtube video calling for the death of gays, you can't own guns. Now the problem is people will just keep quiet, so I'm not sure how well this will work, but the idea of someone being a known risk and being able to buy a gun but not able to board an airplane seems pretty illogical even to someone as pro gun ownership as myself.
4) Continue to address mental health in this country, and the reporting of problems by those around people. In nearly every case people around the person KNOW they are dangerous and a threat and unstable, yet they do nothing. This is the biggie. This guy's wife f-ing drove him to the place and knew of his plans. His first wife never reported abuse that would have itself disqualified him from buying guns. For God's sake, if someone next door is off his absolute rocker, we need a way for people to let authorities know so we can help them and protect society.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
4) Continue to address mental health in this country, and the reporting of problems by those around people. In nearly every case people around the person KNOW they are dangerous and a threat and unstable, yet they do nothing. This is the biggie. This guy's wife f-ing drove him to the place and knew of his plans. His first wife never reported abuse that would have itself disqualified him from buying guns. For God's sake, if someone next door is off his absolute rocker, we need a way for people to let authorities know so we can help them and protect society.
IMO this is the basis of a solution, not restrictions on gun ownership, nor any more restrictive background checks. If people, including parents, other immediate family members, wives, classmates are willing to do nothing when they are confronted with people who are loons and it is obvious they are bent on violent actions, then we will all sit around wringing our hands, mouthing platitudes, and sending our condolences to the families of the dead and injured.
Neighborhood watch groups have run drugs out of communities simply because people became actively involved in the effort to do so
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Just in case you were addressing someone else, I haven't mentioned age requirements...
(I'm enjoying the discussion, though. I'm really curious on what laws people think will have an impact.)
Dan, in the end that is the only way to broadly address the issue.
The truth is that even with universal checks and a perfect database, people who wish to do harm will have little trouble finding guns or making bombs or doing whatever is necessary to implement their plans.
That's the harsh truth. the guy caught in California had bomb materials, and any fool can make a big jug of home brew napalm or pipe bombs and throw it into a gay bar and kill a bunch of people.
The only real solution is for us to embrace the responsibilities that come with our rights as free Americans, and be watchful and involved and vigilant in the protection of our rights by making sure those who threaten them are addressed, either through mental health treatment or through the criminal justice system.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Just to make the point, and defeat my points (and I'll happily do so, I know they are steps but not very solvent in nature), NO CHANGE in gun laws would have prevented Sandy Hook or San Bernadino. Only confiscation of all ARs would have made an impact, but in both of those cases the guns were obtained through family or friends, no background check or transfer involved.
I have no doubt this guy in Orlando would have built a bomb or parked a car on the doors and set it on fire or whatever.
We'll simply shift from killings with guns to killings with IEDs.
In fact Oklahoma City and the Boston Marathon situations prove it. Okla City killed 168, 3 times the number in Orlando, and Boston 'only' killed 5 but injured 280. We'd just have more of those.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Fun reading so far.
Do also remember that I said "wrong people", not just terrorist.
Obviously there is not a 100% fix, but I also think we need to look at some "common sense" changes.
That's a great phrase, but then when I see them listed I don't see a lot of common sense in them to be honest.
I'm in the business. I'm a FFL holder, I'm very familiar with how it all works. There is definitely one common sense improvement, and the industry has been pushing it for years: to fix the mental health reporting of the states so we don't let people buy guns who are adjudicated mentally ill.
But things like bans on assault rifles, or magazine limits, are all but useless. With several million such rifles out there, just stopping new ones does little to keep someone from getting one, and banning them altogether does little to prevent such attacks.
This guy had a Glock. had he just had a couple of those he'd have done as much damage easily.
But I'm curious what may be on your list. There are some things that can be fixed, but the anti-gun groups never support them. The gun industry has gotten zero support from Obama or the anti gun groups as they've gone state to state trying to get legislation to improve reporting. Zero.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
I'll play Devil's advocate a little bit:
Age requirement - Make it 25 or older to buy an automatic weapon (Will get male's past the "mental disorder" stage). Or must be a legal gun owner for 5 years to buy an automatic? You can hunt with a single shot, pump, etc...
Longer wait time - Might give someone time to process their crazy thoughts
More in depth background check - Not sure what this would include but maybe....eliminate anyone that has been treated for certain disorders, anyone questioned to be tied to any hate group, any violent crime (are all violent crimes felonies?) Maybe a background check that has minor flags and that temporarily prevents you from buying a gun?
Training - take some course to buy certain guns, passing the course determines if you can buy a gun or not of a certain style
To me, some of this may address the mental health issue. Again, I don't really like some of these, but if they save one life? Also, I know the bad guys can still get guns if they want or use other means to kill. But that doesn't mean that we don't need to modify the law. Just don't modify it in a way that prevents me from buying a gun
OT from this post: I mostly do not like that they target AR Style weapons as dangerous. You can do a lot of damage with a pump shotgun. So the first time some one uses a shotgun, we will ban them? I can get a handful of shots off pretty quick with a single shot.
I really don't have a list. Just curious really. But you will see some of the thoughts I hear a lot in my post above. I'm around a ton of liberals and they just have naive thoughts on gun control. I don't want to think they are completely stupid without giving it a good amount of thought myself.
Oh, I hate the phrase "common sense" gun laws since a certain person uses it a lot. But after a long day, I have no desire to think of an original phrase
lol. We'd all be fine with it if he followed it with actual common sense, but that's in short supply among our leaders pretty much across the board.Oh, I hate the phrase "common sense" gun laws since a certain person uses it a lot. But after a long day, I have no desire to think of an original phrase
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks