STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

[Jamdoc]

Unless you're saying that every current gun owner would fail the license requirements of this bill that's not going to happen even if this bill is passed as is.

This bill would require psych evals of not only the person wanting to get a license but their entire household, 2 family members not in the household, and any spouses or ex spouses
I mean, really what ex spouse is going to say they want their ex to have a firearm?

 

[Nithavela]

Except everyone carrying guns is whats killing people, not protecting them.

And nobody argues for masks that way, it's only a strawman.

 

[Desk trauma]

This bill would require psych evals of not only the person wanting to get a license but their entire household, 2 family members not in the household, and any spouses or ex spouses
I mean, really what ex spouse is going to say they want their ex to have a firearm?

Me for one but do go on and pretend that I am the only adult in the country capable of moving on once a relationship is over don't let met stop you.

 

[Nithavela]

This bill would require psych evals of not only the person wanting to get a license but their entire household, 2 family members not in the household, and any spouses or ex spouses
I mean, really what ex spouse is going to say they want their ex to have a firearm?

That sounds excessive. Nobody but the gun owner itself should need to pass a psych evaluation.

And really, I don't understand the need for that one, either. Those evaluations are notoriously unsure, and once the first person does a bad thing with the gun although they were cleared, the entire process is called into question.

 

[Jamdoc]

Me for one but do go on and pretend that I am the only adult in the country capable of moving on once a relationship is over don't let met stop you.

Then you're an exception to the rule, a lot of marriages fall out poorly and they can't even remain friends.
People already fail background checks for guns because an ex girlfriend files a complaint about their ex. They don't even need a trial or conviction, just the complaint is enough to have guns taken from you for a year.
Just an accusation.

 

[Jamdoc]

That sounds excessive. Nobody but the gun owner itself should need to pass a psych evaluation.

And really, I don't understand the need for that one, either. Those evaluations are notoriously unsure, and once the first person does a bad thing with the gun although they were cleared, the entire process is called into question.

The bill is basically designed to make it such a pain to own a firearm that it'll be kind of like banning them, without removing the 2nd Amendment from the constitution.

 

[Jamdoc]

So wait - the fact that Poland had the fourth-largest land army in Europe couldn't keep them safe from Hitler, but if only they would have allowed citizens to own a rifle or two, they would have been fine?

House to house fighting against insurgents is much more difficult than fighting against large armies.
when every building can be shooting bullets at the invading troops it slows them down and puts them at high risk, and lowers morale and increases stress.
We lost more troops to sustained insurgency in Iraq than in the initial invasion against their army.

 

[Desk trauma]

Moving back to the OP: as has been said the bill was proposed, failed to get a cosponsor and has been languishing in comity for more than a month, how much more stopped does it need to be?

 

[Sparagmos]

I’ll take those odds over putting the lives of myself and my family at the mercy of whoever is breaking into our house at night. And I’m confident that those odds do not relate to me given my situation and preparedness.

And I feel perfectly comfortable with you having a gun for that extremely rare and unusual threat.

hehe just my conspiratorial look at this, but to me the bill looks more like a anti gun control person putting something forward to make the pro gun control look bad heh.

I genuinely wondered about that. For the most part, this stuff is manufactured or exaggerated by the NRA (gun manufacturer lobby) and politicians looking for donations. Democrats don’t want to disarm the populace and gun control is really far down on our list of priorities right now.

 

[Belk]

Most of the Polish causalities were non-combatant citizens, in 1919 Poland disarmed their people. Their citizens had no individual right to self defense recognized by their government and therefore could not defend themselves against the Nazis. THAT'S a good argument for keeping private American citizens armed.

Whom do you expect to invade us? Canada? Mexico?

 

[Desk trauma]

Whom do you expect to invade us? Canada? Mexico?

Que the quotes of dubious pedigree from WWII Japanese military leaders.

 

[Belk]

Then you're an exception to the rule, a lot of marriages fall out poorly and they can't even remain friends.
People already fail background checks for guns because an ex girlfriend files a complaint about their ex. They don't even need a trial or conviction, just the complaint is enough to have guns taken from you for a year.
Just an accusation.

Where is this law enacted? All the red flag laws I am aware of require a judge to decide on a protective order.

 

[Gene2memE]

Most of the Polish causalities were non-combatant citizens, in 1919 Poland disarmed their people.

This is an asinine mis-reading of history. An armed citizenry would have done nothing in the Polish campaign of 1939.

In fact, Poland had an armed citizenry at the outbreak of the German invasion. Poland had one of the highest rates of personal firearm possession in Europe throughout the 1930s. So much so that firearms violence was a distinct problem in Poland's various 'ethnic' areas.

Despite the 1919 and 1932 gun laws requiring a firearms licence, there were quite literally millions of firearms in personal possession in the country - mostly a motley collection of bolt action rifles left over from WW1 and from the 1921 war.

Then there were the various 'official' paramilitary groups. The Polish Rifleman's Association, the largest such, had around half a million members in 1939 and had trained ~3 million men between 1921 and 1939.

Their citizens had no individual right to self defense recognized by their government and therefore could not defend themselves against the Nazis. THAT'S a good argument for keeping private American citizens armed.

Except, that this is completely wrong.

The Polish Government in the 1920s 1930s supported private firearms ownership through the paramilitary groups, civil defense organisations and the various local government militias.

While the frontline Army numbered ~600,000 at the outbreak of war, Poland had around 2.5 million trained reservists. The strength of Poland's reserves and militias was one of the reasons it was considered - before 1939 - as one of Europe's leading military powers.

 

[tall73]

I'm not the one posting make-believe stories instead of evidence.

To his point the referenced study did say it did not account for training differences.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not the one posting make-believe stories instead of evidence.

Make believe? That’s how plans become reality. They start out as an idea then they’re put into action. Maybe it’s those people who don’t have a plan who become victims when they don’t know what to do when the situation arises. You’ll have to forgive me if I’m not very confident in placing the life of my family on the mercy of a criminal who’s breaking into my house at night. For some strange reason this just doesn’t seem as good of an idea to me as it does to you.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Can you find empathy with those who are concerned?

No, Because you do everything in your power, to take rights away from people. That I care about.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I feel perfectly comfortable with you having a gun for that extremely rare and unusual threat.

I genuinely wondered about that. For the most part, this stuff is manufactured or exaggerated by the NRA (gun manufacturer lobby) and politicians looking for donations. Democrats don’t want to disarm the populace and gun control is really far down on our list of priorities right now.

Thank you, my gun always stays at home with my wife & family for their protection. I never take my gun anywhere unless we’re going camping. I’m the type of person who will run from a fight if I can. I don’t feel the need to be Clint Eastwood or Chuck Norris if someone disrespects me. The reason I bought my gun was because of a horrible dream I had of a break in and while the people were breaking thru my bedroom door with a machete I woke up screaming MARIA RUN!! I felt so helpless in that dream knowing that once they got inside I would be completely incapable of defending my family. I never want to have that feeling again. I know it will probably never happen and I pray that is the case but if it were to happen I sleep better at night knowing that I do have some means to protect my family who I love with all my heart.

 

[tall73]

Chicago seems to be doing much better than a bunch of open carry states with lax gun laws, that's for sure.

State Rate Deaths
Alaska (AK) 23.3 177 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state
Alabama (AL) 21.5 1,046 - Open carry allowed, no restrictions
Louisiana (LA) 21.3 987 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state
Mississippi (MS) 19.9 587 - Open carry allowed, no restrictions
Oklahoma (OK) 19.6 766 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state
Illinois (IL) 11.7 1,490 - No open carry, ID required

Can you clarify, are those total homicides, and from what year? The links for each state just takes it to the state page on Wikipedia.

Also, Illinois as a state doing well does not necessarily mean Chicago is doing well.

 

[Zergling Rush]

House to house fighting against insurgents is much more difficult than fighting against large armies.
when every building can be shooting bullets at the invading troops it slows them down and puts them at high risk, and lowers morale and increases stress.
We lost more troops to sustained insurgency in Iraq than in the initial invasion against their army.

That's only true because the US was trying to avoid civilian casualties. And at the end of the day, who won?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So, before anyone gets in a "they're coming to take my guns" panic mode...I would urge folks to look at the details of this bill.

Obviously the language of the bill would be an extreme infringement if passed

But this isn't the kind of bill that's proposed with any expectation of even getting off the ground...this is a "moral posturing" bill, where a house rep puts up a bill, that they know has no hope of passing (only 4% of bills do become law for that matter, and only 6% even make it to the phase of getting a vote), so they can put a feather in their cap in the subsequent election cycle and say "She fought for strengthening gun laws!" in soundbytes for campaign ads.

This same congresswoman puts up the same identical bill proposal in July of 2019 (H.R. 4081), and it didn't even receive a vote. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and died on the table.

Guess where this current one is right now?

Statistically and logistically speaking, the odds are overwhelming that this one will suffer the same fate.

GovTrack actually works with a company called "Skopos Labs", which is an organization that builds pretty accurate models of a bill's chance of becoming law...taking into account many different metrics, social factors, compositions of various committees and subcommittees (and the voting history of the people involved), as well as public opinion polling to determine a bill's chance of becoming law. Their modeling is reliable enough that major corporations use them to "hedge policy risk" both in terms of "pass/fail" for a bill, as well as the private sector financial impact of a bill should it pass.

Their verdict on this one:

Science Mag actually did an article about this particular organization
Artificial intelligence can predict which congressional bills will pass



These types of "virtue signal bills" are often leveraged by actors on both sides. One side's virtue signaling, becomes the other side's "chief scaremongering tool".

In this instance, what she's putting up as a virtue signal, the other side is using to scare people into opening up their wallets for the gun lobbies.