What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

What's your alternative to "existing laws"? Confiscation? The Second Amendment exists to prevent this very activity.

Any proposal requires an honest, clear-eyed view of the root cause of mass shootings. But let's not stop there. How about we look at the root cause of shootings in general? (Hint: It's not the availability of guns - just ask the Swiss and other countries that have relatively high gun ownership rates).

What’s the root cause? And what’s the solution?

The root cause is behavior, not whether tools or technology are misused. Endless varieties of crime occur using endless tools or technology, or just exploiting human physical weakness or gullibility. Identify and neutralize bad behavior.

So you want to regulate the behavior of gun owners? Psych profiles, extensive background checks, etc? Makes sense.

We do, Plenty of laws on the books relative to firearms, as well as to other activities. The problem is enforcing the laws, all the laws, in the face of bad behavior. If penalties are neither sure nor impactful, they don't deter anyone. Criminals in jail cannot commit further crimes against the public. Criminals who receive trivial sentences, are released without bail, or who are enabled by policies imposed on law enforcement which limit its effectiveness, remain criminals. The mentally ill who are not dealt with effectively can, depending on their specific issues, become violent if unsupervised. We can deal with violence and crime, we just don't want to, often because we characterize the criminals as somehow not responsible for what they do, so we leave them to it. We could end carjacking by outlawing cars, how about that? Or, we could deal with carjackers in a manner which denies them access to cars in the future, by leaving them in jail. Ditto for gun crime - commit a crime with a gun, you should be done, but all too often such criminals receive light sentences and are back on the street.

"We already have gun laws" is not an answer or solution; it’s a shrug disguised as policy.

Yes, we have existing gun laws. But they’re a loose patchwork, full of of loopholes, weak enforcement, and wildly inconsistent standards across states. And criminals know how to exploit that patchwork and its loopholes. Chicago may have some of the strictest gun laws in the country but a criminal can just drive 30 minutes across the border into Indiana where the gun laws are among the most lax, including buying a gun via private seller with no ID, no background check, no paperwork, no waiting period, no questions asked. Yes, the private seller is technically responsible for ensuring that the buyer isn't a felon or mentally incapacitated but that's easily dodged. So, the existing gun laws don't work.

Nonetheless, the data is clear: that states with stronger gun laws do typically have fewer mass shootings and lower gun death rates. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/research-supports-tighter-gun-laws-reduce-mass-shooting-violence

Let’s break some of those proven results down:
Large-capacity magazine bans are associated with a 49% lower rate of fatal mass shootings.
The expiration of the federal assault weapons ban led to a 183% increase in high-fatality mass shooting incidents and a 239% increase in deaths.
States with more permissive gun laws experience significantly more mass shootings than those with tighter regulations.

So no, in many places the "existing laws" aren’t working, and places with weaker laws are undermining those with stronger laws. Nobody is saying laws don’t matter or don't work at all, we are saying they aren't working because in many places, we’ve gutted and undermined the laws that do work, and in other places, we refuse to pass the laws that have already been proven to work.

Saying “we already have laws” is like watching a house burn and insisting the fire code is fine while the hydrants are dry and the exits are blocked.

If you oppose confiscation and still claim to care about safety, then the burden is on you to propose real reforms: universal background checks, red flag laws, licensing, safe storage mandates, and yes: restrictions on weapons designed for mass killing.

Otherwise, you’re not defending liberty. You’re defending inertia. And America is bleeding for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

What's your alternative to "existing laws"? Confiscation? The Second Amendment exists to prevent this very activity.

Any proposal requires an honest, clear-eyed view of the root cause of mass shootings. But let's not stop there. How about we look at the root cause of shootings in general? (Hint: It's not the availability of guns - just ask the Swiss and other countries that have relatively high gun ownership rates).

What’s the root cause? And what’s the solution?

The root cause is behavior, not whether tools or technology are misused. Endless varieties of crime occur using endless tools or technology, or just exploiting human physical weakness or gullibility. Identify and neutralize bad behavior.

So you want to regulate the behavior of gun owners? Psych profiles, extensive background checks, etc? Makes sense.

DP. Actually, the PP likely wants you to acknowledge that the people who commit mass shootings are crazy - and to tell the public why - without downplaying or omitting inconvenient facts. Hiding the motivations of mass shooters helps no one.

DP

Ahhh... So the answer is we need to acknowledge them. So whenever there's a mass shooting we just shrug, say "oh they were crazy," and accept the loss of another dozen dead kids or churchgoers or shoppers or wherever else in a place where people congregate as totally acceptable collateral damage, and go on about our lives. Not bothering to make sure that other crazy people don't also get guns and commit mass shootings. Because, where it comes to "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem" we're gonna refuse to have red flag laws because, "hey, what if they think I'm crazy and come to take away my paranoid zombie armageddon stockpile of AR-15s and ammo" and also refuse to do anything about treating the mental health problem, because paying for someone else with my taxpayer dollars makes it "communism" or something, right?

Do I have that all captured correctly? Because I don't think I've heard anything different or better in terms of proposals from the pro-2A posters in this thread.

They were crazy before they committed a crime. Nothing was done about it, because we prefer to leave the crazies alone. That's the problem. People who are neither insane nor criminals are not the problem, and regulating their behavior further accomplishes nothing useful.

Well, they actually are the problem - because people who allegedly aren't criminals and allegedly aren't crazy are the ones who keep funneling guns to the criminals and crazies. So ONLY focusing on the crazies isn't going to solve it. We need significantly greater accountability.

I would mandate that EVERY gun transfer needs to be registered, and to go into a persistent, searchable database. I would mandate a requirement that guns be locked up when not in one's immediate possession. A persistent, searchable database would quickly reveal who the bad actors are. If someone has bought 200 guns in the last 10 years then law enforcement should be able to expect to show up at their home and have all 200 guns produced and shown to them as evidence they didn't do anything wrong with them. If not, they need to be investigated and prosecuted as being a gun runner and/or accomplice to other gun crimes.

In fact I'd mandate we treat guns the way we do cars. Require training and passing a safety test before being allowed to handle or own guns. Have health requirements - not only do I not want crazy people owning guns, I don't want people with blindness or other impairments that would interfere with their ability to safely handle and use a gun to be owning and handling guns. I would also require registration as noted above, and as with vehicles, require periodic inspection. If you bought shotguns I want to see proof that you haven't sawed them off or otherwise illegally modified them. If you bought an arsenal of ARs and handguns I want you to be able to present and account for every single one of them. If a gun was stolen or lost, you need to report it immediately. If you have a questionable history of "losing" gun after gun after gun then you should be flagged as either a straw buyer who is illegally buying guns for others, or if you actually lost them you should be flagged as too irresponsible to have guns. There should also be insurance requirements that you pay in to that will cover the expenses of every gun mishap nationally.

That a lot of words to say you want to trample the 4th & 14th Amendments and violate the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This is why we have laws and a Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

[Anonymous]

“Persistent, searchable database.”

Is that like a regular old boring database, but with extra names, like when Mom calls Larlo by his full name “Larlolargo Campagne Maleffluente,” to show she’s really mad?

How would it differ from the one that seems to have allowed authorities to determine in just minutes where the MN sicko got his guns and that the purchases had complied with all of MN’s very extensive and stringent regulations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

I’m sure you’re very law abiding. So are the mass shooters, road ragers, and family annihilators who obtain their guns legally, right up until they’re not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

If it's not your job to come up with policies then it's also not your job to obstruct the people who do want to come up with policy.

Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

If you don't think you have a role in coming up with policy then shut up and stand down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Persistent, searchable database.”

Is that like a regular old boring database, but with extra names, like when Mom calls Larlo by his full name “Larlolargo Campagne Maleffluente,” to show she’s really mad?

How would it differ from the one that seems to have allowed authorities to determine in just minutes where the MN sicko got his guns and that the purchases had complied with all of MN’s very extensive and stringent regulations?

They executed a search warrant on his residence and found the purchase record. That's how.

ATF only has a database that tracks guns going from manufacturers to dealers. Not to purchasers. The 4473s are currently only held by the retailer, they are not entered into any central ATF database. And in fact the NRA pushed legislation to make it illegal for ATF to put it into a central database. So there's no central system to help identify and flag someone who may have bought 2000 guns over the span of 10 years to resell to criminals. That alone is a crystal clear demonstration of a broken system, and those expected to "enforce the current laws" having their hands tied and being blindfolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Persistent, searchable database.”

Is that like a regular old boring database, but with extra names, like when Mom calls Larlo by his full name “Larlolargo Campagne Maleffluente,” to show she’s really mad?

How would it differ from the one that seems to have allowed authorities to determine in just minutes where the MN sicko got his guns and that the purchases had complied with all of MN’s very extensive and stringent regulations?

They executed a search warrant on his residence and found the purchase record. That's how.

ATF only has a database that tracks guns going from manufacturers to dealers. Not to purchasers. The 4473s are currently only held by the retailer, they are not entered into any central ATF database. And in fact the NRA pushed legislation to make it illegal for ATF to put it into a central database. So there's no central system to help identify and flag someone who may have bought 2000 guns over the span of 10 years to resell to criminals. That alone is a crystal clear demonstration of a broken system, and those expected to "enforce the current laws" having their hands tied and being blindfolded.

So, no database, persistent, searchable, or otherwise, played any role in determining the source of the MN shooter’s firearms, and would not have played any such role in any event? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Persistent, searchable database.”

Is that like a regular old boring database, but with extra names, like when Mom calls Larlo by his full name “Larlolargo Campagne Maleffluente,” to show she’s really mad?

How would it differ from the one that seems to have allowed authorities to determine in just minutes where the MN sicko got his guns and that the purchases had complied with all of MN’s very extensive and stringent regulations?

They executed a search warrant on his residence and found the purchase record. That's how.

ATF only has a database that tracks guns going from manufacturers to dealers. Not to purchasers. The 4473s are currently only held by the retailer, they are not entered into any central ATF database. And in fact the NRA pushed legislation to make it illegal for ATF to put it into a central database. So there's no central system to help identify and flag someone who may have bought 2000 guns over the span of 10 years to resell to criminals. That alone is a crystal clear demonstration of a broken system, and those expected to "enforce the current laws" having their hands tied and being blindfolded.

So, no database, persistent, searchable, or otherwise, played any role in determining the source of the MN shooter’s firearms, and would not have played any such role in any event? Got it.

No, a database didn’t play a role because no such database exists. That’s the problem.

Authorities had to do it the hard way: get search warrants, dig through the shooter’s residence, manually comb through papers and devices, and hope they’d find a receipt. They got lucky. But luck isn’t a strategy, and it’s certainly not a substitute for a functioning system.

Now imagine how different that would be if we had a persistent, searchable database of gun transfers. The moment the suspect was identified, investigators could have pulled up:

- Whether he himself bought the gun, and if he bought it,
- When and where he bought it
- Whether his background check came back in time and what he put on his 4473 form
- Whether he’d purchased other weapons recently
- If he was at the store with others buying guns at the same time
- If he and the others bought more guns at other stores

Instead of hours or days of manual work, it could take minutes.

Let’s put it in terms even the “enforce the laws we already have” crowd should grasp: Suppose a mass shooter files off the serial number and destroys the receipt. Without a database, the trail goes cold. Unless a gun shop employee happens to remember him, and happens to call the police, there’s no way to trace the weapon.

Now imagine we do have a database. Investigators search the suspect’s name and discover he bought multiple guns, along with several associates who also made large purchases with him, across different stores. Suddenly, what looked like a lone wolf is now a coordinated cell, and law enforcement has leads, patterns, and names.

That’s the difference between reactive chaos and proactive intelligence. And the reason we don’t have that system? Because lobbying groups made sure it’s illegal to build one.

So yes, we “have laws.” But we’ve also deliberately blinded the people tasked with enforcing them. That’s not liberty. That’s sabotage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

If it's not your job to come up with policies then it's also not your job to obstruct the people who do want to come up with policy.

Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

If you don't think you have a role in coming up with policy then shut up and stand down.

You don’t have a role either. That you believe you do is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

If it's not your job to come up with policies then it's also not your job to obstruct the people who do want to come up with policy.

Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

If you don't think you have a role in coming up with policy then shut up and stand down.

You don’t have a role either. That you believe you do is the problem.

DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of blah blah blah about semantics and minor nuances of weapon functionality in these last two pages. But no action.

That's unacceptable.

One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.

We need action, not words.

If you don't want confiscation and you want to preserve 2A that's all fine and good but you still need to come up with a proposal that will make America safer, because without one you are failing America and you are standing in the way of people who want America to be safer.

So what's your proposal? (Hint: "the existing laws" clearly aren't working.)

It’s not my job to come up with policies. It’s my job to follow the law. I do that spectacularly well.

If it's not your job to come up with policies then it's also not your job to obstruct the people who do want to come up with policy.

Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

If you don't think you have a role in coming up with policy then shut up and stand down.

You don’t have a role either. That you believe you do is the problem.

DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

Face it. This person is a complete coward who cannot believe that the vast majority of people live fine lives without any guns at all, and know that in the rare cases of being confronted with an armed monster, guns really just don't help. he is afraid of the monster under his bed, and thinks he needs a gun to protect himself, even if all the evidence shows that is not true.

We sane people need to ignore this kind of person and get on with gun control. Polls show that the vast majority of people are sick of being one of like 2 nations that arms mentally unstable people like this poster. Personally, I like some common sense restrictions. It has to be registered. It has to be kept in a locked case. It has to be inspected once a year. You cannot have one if you have committed any crimes at all ever or have to take mind-altering medications. And no automatic weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

If people keep fantasizing about illegal and unconstitutional “solutions” I’ll keep pointing it out. I’ve heard all of these arguments before, yet here we are. That people here think they’re coming with unique solutions is interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

If people keep fantasizing about illegal and unconstitutional “solutions” I’ll keep pointing it out. I’ve heard all of these arguments before, yet here we are. That people here think they’re coming with unique solutions is interesting.

There's no such thing as unconstitutional solutions. All we need is a President to take action and SCOTUS to interpret those actions. That's the roadmap Trump has established. It's not going to happen now, but it can happen in the future. There is absolutely nothing sacred about the Second Amendment or permanent with respect to how it's currently interpreted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. They’ve proposed several ideas. All you’re doing is shrugging and coming up with excuses for why nothing can ever be done to reduce gun violence.

Other countries have addressed the issue. It’s not impossible like you claim.

If people keep fantasizing about illegal and unconstitutional “solutions” I’ll keep pointing it out. I’ve heard all of these arguments before, yet here we are. That people here think they’re coming with unique solutions is interesting.

There's no such thing as unconstitutional solutions. All we need is a President to take action and SCOTUS to interpret those actions. That's the roadmap Trump has established. It's not going to happen now, but it can happen in the future. There is absolutely nothing sacred about the Second Amendment or permanent with respect to how it's currently interpreted.

It would be great if somebody would do the right thing and propose a constitutional amendment. I feel certain if it was brought to the voters, it would be approved.