Beto O’Rourke interrupts briefing, echoing US debate on guns

[ThatRobGuy]

Clearly the last ban on assault weapons accomplished nothing and was left to expire in a quiet death so that it could be resurrected for political purposes at a later date.

I would agree, the last assault weapons ban didn't accomplish much.

A) Because targeting "scary looking guns" (based on what one may have seen in a Seagal movie) isn't a pragmatic approach as "how scary it looks" isn't always reflective of it's capabilities.

For instance, this Ruger 5.56 ranch rifle:

Is just as capable as this Sig Sauer 556:

The previous AWB was aimed at theatrics...which is why I've noted several times that I didn't think it was all that practical

B) Even if it had some good stuff in the legislation (which is up for debate), only being around for 10 years, I wouldn't expect to see a huge fluctuation in the numbers... even more so for the reason I mentioned in A. If it's targeting guns based on theatrics (while leaving functionally equivalent, but less "scary looking" guns on the market), then no, I would expect to see a huge shift.

It'd be like trying to crack down on alcohol related incidents by only banning Jägermeister and Jose Cuervo because those are associated with "wild partying" in TV and movies, and still leaving Scotch and Gin on the market.

There is no evidence that a ban on guns accomplishes anything in our nation, we cannot look to other nations with other cultures, we live in a violent nation.

I hate to nitpick on semantics, but if a nation could ban guns, you would see a reduction in homicides. The question is, rather, is a ban even feasible or possible? To which I would say, no, it's not.

And you should note, I've said before that it would be a mistake to try to emulate UK or Australia...which is why I've often said we should be looking at a place like the Czech Republic.

They're a nation that has the same appreciation for guns, and wants them for largely the same reasons we do (it became part of their national charter/constitution after they learned their lesson getting overrun by the commies, and enacted that provision after the fall of the communist dictatorship in 1990).

It states their citizens have:
the right to acquire, keep and bear arms

And further elaborates they have:
the right to defend own life or life of another person with arms

They also have "shall issue" concealed carry
Over 80% of their gun owners cite self-defense as their reason for ownership
They don't have "gun free zones" like we have them
Heck, even the word "pistol" originated in the Czech language

They certainly have a cultural liking for guns like we do.

Yet, they have a murder rate that's on par with the Scandinavian countries.

Specifically because they enacted certain prudent restrictions where they made sense (like better mental health screening as part of the process to get a gun license, and making sure the would-be buyer actually knows how to handle one and has had training), and focused less on the theatrics about "what looks scary".

It's worked well for them...it's at least worth considering here.

This is not a complicated problem, eliminate the shooters and people do not get shot an innocent kids do not get killed anymore.

How does one "eliminate the shooters" from society before they've been convicted of a crime?

Most murderers in our country aren't serial killers. According to DOJ/FBI stats, fewer than 2% of murders are carried out by a person who's killed before.

We are focused on mass shooting that result in a very very small percentage of the people who are being shot and killed.

On that point, we agree entirely...

If we want to save lives we will recognize political hype for what it is and do what we all know will solve the problem by enforcing the laws we now have and cleaning up the streets.

...but we are already enforcing the gun laws we have, they're just weak in certain areas.

For instance, a person with a severe mental illness can walk into a gun store, and provided they haven't committed a prior felony, and haven't been institutionalized against their will or by a court order, they can pass the background check and walk out of the store with a gun.

As can a person who's never handled a gun a day in their life and couldn't field strip a simple Glock to save their life.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bottom line is that in this country, people have rights which include the right to due process and while some people might like to take it upon themselves to decide who should and who should not have a gun based on just their opinion because they think they should have the power to make that decision, thankfully that is not something that can be done in this country.

So, in your opinion...

If a schizophrenic who hears voices in their head walks into a gun store, but has never been convicted of a crime, and has never been involuntarily institutionalized (or by court order), should they be allowed to buy a gun?

And the notion of "restricting rights and privileges, preemptively, based on the risk of what one might do" isn't one that many people on the right take a consistent approach on.

For instance, many of them are more than willing to create a bunch of strict bathroom rules or rules on voting (based on what someone "might do"... based on outlier incidents), but that concept of "overly cautious risk mitigation" seems to go out the window when talking about guns.

 

[cow451]

So, in your opinion...

If a schizophrenic who hears voices in their head walks into a gun store, but has never been convicted of a crime, and has never been involuntarily institutionalized (or by court order), should they be allowed to buy a gun?

And the notion of "restricting rights and privileges, preemptively, based on the risk of what one might do" isn't one that many people on the right take a consistent approach on.

For instance, many of them are more than willing to create a bunch of strict bathroom rules or rules on voting (based on what someone "might do"... based on outlier incidents), but that concept of "overly cautious risk mitigation" seems to go out the window when talking about guns.

Arresting people who are talking crazy isn’t legal unless making specific threats. Otherwise a certain member of Congress from GA might get a life sentence. I mean, do you really want to lock up the pillow guy and Alex Jones?

 

[Bradskii]

Arresting people who are talking crazy isn’t legal unless making specific threats. Otherwise a certain member of Congress from GA might get a life sentence. I mean, do you really want to lock up the pillow guy and Alex Jones?

I wouldn't lock Jones up. But I might temporarily secure him in a room with a few Sandy Hook fathers.

 

[disciple Clint]

I would agree, the last assault weapons ban didn't accomplish much.

A) Because targeting "scary looking guns" (based on what one may have seen in a Seagal movie) isn't a pragmatic approach as "how scary it looks" isn't always reflective of it's capabilities.

For instance, this Ruger 5.56 ranch rifle:
View attachment 316589

Is just as capable as this Sig Sauer 556:
View attachment 316590

The previous AWB was aimed at theatrics...which is why I've noted several times that I didn't think it was all that practical

B) Even if it had some good stuff in the legislation (which is up for debate), only being around for 10 years, I wouldn't expect to see a huge fluctuation in the numbers... even more so for the reason I mentioned in A. If it's targeting guns based on theatrics (while leaving functionally equivalent, but less "scary looking" guns on the market), then no, I would expect to see a huge shift.

It'd be like trying to crack down on alcohol related incidents by only banning Jägermeister and Jose Cuervo because those are associated with "wild partying" in TV and movies, and still leaving Scotch and Gin on the market.



I hate to nitpick on semantics, but if a nation could ban guns, you would see a reduction in homicides. The question is, rather, is a ban even feasible or possible? To which I would say, no, it's not.

And you should note, I've said before that it would be a mistake to try to emulate UK or Australia...which is why I've often said we should be looking at a place like the Czech Republic.

They're a nation that has the same appreciation for guns, and wants them for largely the same reasons we do (it became part of their national charter/constitution after they learned their lesson getting overrun by the commies, and enacted that provision after the fall of the communist dictatorship in 1990).

It states their citizens have:
the right to acquire, keep and bear arms

And further elaborates they have:
the right to defend own life or life of another person with arms

They also have "shall issue" concealed carry
Over 80% of their gun owners cite self-defense as their reason for ownership
They don't have "gun free zones" like we have them
Heck, even the word "pistol" originated in the Czech language

They certainly have a cultural liking for guns like we do.

Yet, they have a murder rate that's on par with the Scandinavian countries.

Specifically because they enacted certain prudent restrictions where they made sense (like better mental health screening as part of the process to get a gun license, and making sure the would-be buyer actually knows how to handle one and has had training), and focused less on the theatrics about "what looks scary".

It's worked well for them...it's at least worth considering here.



How does one "eliminate the shooters" from society before they've been convicted of a crime?

Most murderers in our country aren't serial killers. According to DOJ/FBI stats, fewer than 2% of murders are carried out by a person who's killed before.



On that point, we agree entirely...



...but we are already enforcing the gun laws we have, they're just weak in certain areas.

For instance, a person with a severe mental illness can walk into a gun store, and provided they haven't committed a prior felony, and haven't been institutionalized against their will or by a court order, they can pass the background check and walk out of the store with a gun.

As can a person who's never handled a gun a day in their life and couldn't field strip a simple Glock to save their life.

We are close to being on the same page.

Most murderers in our country aren't serial killers. According to DOJ/FBI stats, fewer than 2% of murders are carried out by a person who's killed before.

Most killers have previous convictions for other serious crimes. So we will never be able to prevent all killings we can eliminate a serious about of them if we enforce the other laws we have a get people who are violent off the streets before they murder someone. There is very little deterrent effect in the way the laws are being enforced now or should I say not enforced.

 

[disciple Clint]

So, in your opinion...

If a schizophrenic who hears voices in their head walks into a gun store, but has never been convicted of a crime, and has never been involuntarily institutionalized (or by court order), should they be allowed to buy a gun?

And the notion of "restricting rights and privileges, preemptively, based on the risk of what one might do" isn't one that many people on the right take a consistent approach on.

For instance, many of them are more than willing to create a bunch of strict bathroom rules or rules on voting (based on what someone "might do"... based on outlier incidents), but that concept of "overly cautious risk mitigation" seems to go out the window when talking about guns.

I see two problems 1. how do we identify those people, those who have come to the attention of a mental health profession and been assessed as a risk should not be able to have a gun. 2. who decides that there is a serious mental health issue? I would want to make certain that the person making that determination is in fact qualified to make it. We just cannot allow rights to be impaired without due process.

 

[Bradskii]

Most killers have previous convictions for other serious crimes.

No examples of criminals who should be locked up committing the type of mass killings we are discussing?

[/sarcasm]I'm surprised no-one's asked you...

 

[Bradskii]

Who decides that there is a serious mental health issue? I would want to make certain that the person making that determination is in fact qualified to make it. We just cannot allow rights to be impaired without due process.

If you could agree on who that should be, then would you agree to that being a requirement to owning a gun?

 

[disciple Clint]

No examples of criminals who should be locked up committing the type of mass killings we are discussing?

[/sarcasm]I'm surprised no-one's asked you...

I covered this is an answer to you on a previous post.

 

[disciple Clint]

If you could agree on who that should be, then would you agree to that being a requirement to owning a gun?

If the person was truly qualified to make that determination yes of course I have not desire to have dangerous people armed and on the streets.

 

[Bradskii]

If the person was truly qualified to make that determination yes of course I have not desire to have dangerous people armed and on the streets.

Speak to your local Congressman and tell him what you want. Your email or your call will help.

 

[Paulos23]

How about the Red Flag law in Florada? Would that be a starting point at least?

Florida's red flag law, championed by Republicans, is taking guns from thousands of people | CNN Politics

 

[cow451]

We are close to being on the same page.
Most killers have previous convictions for other serious crimes. So we will never be able to prevent all killings we can eliminate a serious about of them if we enforce the other laws we have a get people who are violent off the streets before they murder someone. There is very little deterrent effect in the way the laws are being enforced now or should I say not enforced.

I don't disagree but the taxpayers don't want to pay for more prisons and they don't want them nearby.

 

[cow451]

I see two problems 1. how do we identify those people, those who have come to the attention of a mental health profession and been assessed as a risk should not be able to have a gun. 2. who decides that there is a serious mental health issue? I would want to make certain that the person making that determination is in fact qualified to make it. We just cannot allow rights to be impaired without due process.

You make really good points. Any good idea has devil in the details. One area that could be improved greatly is access to mental health care. Unfortunately, the only realistic way to do that is with universal healthcare that includes mental health coverage. And that can't be done effectively on the cheap.

 

[Bradskii]

How about the Red Flag law in Florada? Would that be a starting point at least?

Florida's red flag law, championed by Republicans, is taking guns from thousands of people | CNN Politics

What an excellent example of what can be done. The question then needs to be asked....why isn't everyone doing it?