THE Gun Thread

[Brian37]

Would criminals respect laws?

Of course not. They don' t now.

You think they' re going to line up and register their guns - get licensed and insured like the proposals we hear - that only the law abiding will.follow?

At least with my way they won' t try buying guns from law abiding citizens.

Forcing all sales through FFLs is just more goddamned worthless paperwork and cost for the law abiding. Most shops charge between $25 and $50. 

Once again you want to punish the wrong people..

I love how requiring everyone to follow the same laws becomes a "punishment"

No kidding. I agree. I hate idiots who bitch about getting a speeding ticket. You sped you deserve a ticket. 

QUOTE "Would criminals respect laws? Of course not."

By that logic we should have absolutely no laws at all.

[Rev. Rye]

And given that mental hospitals have been underfunded for the better part of 60 years, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did find something wrong with him but decided they couldn’t keep him in for very long (either because insurance wouldn’t pay for his stay or because they decided whatever was wrong could be put in check if he took some medication, but he ended up refusing to take them once he was on his own.)

[The Architect Of Fate]

And given that mental hospitals have been underfunded for the better part of 60 years, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did find something wrong with him but decided they couldn’t keep him in for very long (either because insurance wouldn’t pay for his stay or because they decided whatever was wrong could be put in check if he took some medication,  but he ended up refusing to take them once he was on his own.)

It always amuses me when gun nuts blame mental illness but then never lift a finger to demand improvements in the mental health system. It's almost as if it's simply a scapegoat for the real problem. Just like not too long ago they were blaming video games and Marilyn Manson for mass shootings 

[Secular Elf]

You are missing that 80% of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Ammendment - as defined - as the right to own guns. The fact that they don' t own firearns is irrelevant.

A majority of US citizens also believe in a god. Should ALL be required to believe as the majority???

And I don' t see any answer to my question of do you apply this minority fairness doctrine to all or just the issues you agree with??

The fact that some supporters of the right to own guns don’t own guns themselves is extremely relevant - you opened that door when you specified ‘the majority of gun owners’, not the majority of voters.

According to various studies, about 1/3 of American adults own at least one firearm. A majority of gun owners is therefore anything above 16%. If you’re a champion of majority rule, don’t you think it’s rather silly for 16.1% of the electorate to dictate terms to 83.1%?

Your point about God is just idiotic. There is a significant difference between a belief in God and the actual possession of a firearm.

I didn’t answer your question about minority fairness because my position has nothing to do with minority fairness. If anything, I’m advocating letting the majority run roughshod over the perceived rights of this particular minority (gun owners).

But I’m not even advocating removing guns. I’ve outlined some ideas that could help ensure that only trained, safety-conscious, stable, law abiding people get to own guns. I’d even go a bit farther and add a grandfather clause that current gun owners could keep their guns without going through the steps outlined earlier (someone who has owned firearms for years without serious violations is likely to be responsible enough to continue to do so).

Boru

I think that Boru's point is a reasonable position. In my personal history I have had limited exposure to firearms. My father owned a .22 rifle he used for hunting small game and kept in the house for protection. When I was 11 he allowed me to shoot it on one of our excursions in the woods. I think the 2nd Amendment, even if it is considered archaic, has some limited use for reasons of personal protection and hunting. Mass shootings are indeed a problem and I think there should be gun control, if the current laws on the books would simply be enforced and even updated. But good luck with that so long as Conservatives exist that have any amount of influence in our government. I don't own any guns myself but I would like to, but I find pricing to be out of my reach, as I have a limited income as a disabled individual.

[Secular Elf]

Long Gun registration only failed because the Harper Government stripped the law of its teeth and provincial Conservative governments refused to enforce it. Any law fails when there is a significant faction within the government trying to undermine it.

Conservatives, no matter which country they reside in, are very good at undermining significant legislation and laws for the larger good. Their whole purpose for existing is to keep society and culture from advancing.

[Angrboda]

If I'm not mistaken, there's not a very strong correlation between either mental illness or one or two felonies and future gun violence. More violent felonies correlate less well. Lesser felonies don't tend to predict violent crime well. Mental illness doesn't correlate at all as you're more likely to see gun violence from someone who isn't mentally ill, so he's got that backwards. So all this biker bullshit about preserving gun ownership for the responsible is just a bunch of ass tooting.

[onlinebiker]

Piss on psych testing.... The monster who just shot up Buffalo had psych testing in the last year ( after threatening to shoot up a school) ....

According to the shrink - he' s fine...

That’s a baseless assumption on your part. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/us/payton...index.html

"The student was taken into custody under NYS Mental Health Law section 9.41 and transported to the hospital for a mental health evaluation," state police told CNN in an email.

State police were unable to confirm how long the individual was in the hospital or the findings of the evaluation. They also refused to name the 17-year-old.

We don’t know that he was ‘fine’.

Boru

He was taken in for psych eval after threatening to shoot up a school. THEN he went and legally bought a rifle and passed a NICS check.

It is safe to say the headshrinker thought he was "just an excitable boy".......

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s a baseless assumption on your part. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/us/payton...index.html


We don’t know that he was ‘fine’.

Boru

He was taken in for psych eval after threatening to shoot up a school. THEN he went and legally bought a rifle and passed a NICS check.

It is safe to say the headshrinker thought he was "just an excitable boy".......

Sorry, but I think may be another unjustifiable assumption - how do you know he threatened to ‘shoot up’ a school? Every source I’ve looked at just said he made a ‘generalized threat’. I’d be happy to look if you have something more specific.

It is NOT safe to say anything about his psych evaluation. For all you or I know, he was found to be dangerous, just not dangerous enough to be kept in custody (I don’t know what the relevant standards are in New York for that). I’m not saying that was what was determined, just that we don’t know.

You seem to be of two minds regarding this sort of thing: when cops shoot people, you go on and on about ‘we don’t have all the facts’. In this case, you seem willing to substitute your own speculations for facts not in evidence.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

The Buffalo shooter was not mentally ill. His motivations were idealogy, not a mental illness.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be clear...do we think that anyone who has either made a threat..or who someone or some institution or some entity accuses of having made a threat, should go on a No Gun list, Biker? Who's for the abolition of gun ownership, again?

Anywho, I'm not terribly concerned with whether the shooter was mentally ill, as Helios notes, he was ideologically motivated. Yet another lone wolf. There's just this super huge pack of lone wolves out there.