Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

[Anonymous]

I think this deserves its own thread, but I’ll put it here for now. The US surgeon general declares guns of health emergency. I really hope with the latest gun ruling from Scotus. We can start to clawback some of our rights. The right to not have to be afraid to go to school, the right to go to the movies, the right to go to a parade, the right to go to Synagogue, the right to rummage through your parents dresser without coming across a loaded gun.
🎁 https://wapo.st/3zeLkr8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

Punishing guns? WTF are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

Sorry this is not a small subset of guns harming people. It’s the number one killer of children. Safe storage, would be a fine place to start. I mean, do you leave your kitchen knives just lying around house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

If the school asks you to come in because of the bloody drawings of gunned down class mates your child is making, and you basically ignore it, and then your kid guns down his classmates, you would probably be lucky if all you got was some prison time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

If the school asks you to come in because of the bloody drawings of gunned down class mates your child is making, and you basically ignore it, and then your kid guns down his classmates, you would probably be lucky if all you got was some prison time.

Not to mention not securing the gun. Kids died because the father bought a gun a few days before and left it lying around for his crazy son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

If the school asks you to come in because of the bloody drawings of gunned down class mates your child is making, and you basically ignore it, and then your kid guns down his classmates, you would probably be lucky if all you got was some prison time.

Not to mention not securing the gun. Kids died because the father bought a gun a few days before and left it lying around for his crazy son.

Vulnerable mentally ill kids getting setup? Let that sink in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

Sorry this is not a small subset of guns harming people. It’s the number one killer of children. Safe storage, would be a fine place to start. I mean, do you leave your kitchen knives just lying around house?

But look closer at the details of the deaths. Often youths settling “scores” be they gang or drug related with one race having significantly more deaths than others. Data is known but not shared as part of this study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

Sorry this is not a small subset of guns harming people. It’s the number one killer of children. Safe storage, would be a fine place to start. I mean, do you leave your kitchen knives just lying around house?

But look closer at the details of the deaths. Often youths settling “scores” be they gang or drug related with one race having significantly more deaths than others. Data is known but not shared as part of this study.

For what it's worth, politicians and the media treat the kind of gun deaths you're talking about as commonplace. It's the mass shootings at schools or music festivals that get Democrats to attempt to pass legislation while Republicans send thoughts and prayers.

[Anonymous]

13/50

[Anonymous]

No one cares. Gun control isn't even a top 15 issue for voters. Look at the polls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

The vast majority occurs within a small subset of the population. If you want to reduce gun murders, create policies that target them. Talking about punishing these parents for their failure to control their freak child shows you care more about punishing guns than solving the problem.

Sorry this is not a small subset of guns harming people. It’s the number one killer of children. Safe storage, would be a fine place to start. I mean, do you leave your kitchen knives just lying around house?

But look closer at the details of the deaths. Often youths settling “scores” be they gang or drug related with one race having significantly more deaths than others. Data is known but not shared as part of this study.

The fact that kids are so easily getting guns is problematic. More focus and attention needs to be put on the pipelines by which they get their guns and those involved in supplying the guns need to start getting charged as accessory to murder, armed robbery or whatever else these kids are using the guns for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US v. Rahimi decision was a good decision and upheld a common sense gun law.

Finally SCOTUS did something to tell “shall not be infringed” to shove it up their @ss.

+1 It looks like Roberts realized that Bruen was a runaway train and he’s trying to pull it back.

This although a stretch still fits into the Bruen construct. In the end the vast, vast, majority of law abiding people will be able to have a weapon for self protection in the vast majority of places they wish to go.

It unfortunately will just take more cases and time to get there.

It’s the first time in a while that any restriction has been put in place and upheld. We’ve been on a long descent into no rules at all.

We still need to deal with stopping people with mental illness from being able to buy or have access to guns in their household and so many other things. Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and so many other shootings could have been preventable. Along with a huge number of gun suicides.

I agree with you but I can't help but wonder...how? Require a mental health screening before every purchase? Require an annual mental health screening to retain possession? I don't see any Republican ever supporting any such measure.

You are missing the point mental health is the issue, you don’t tie it to gun purchases or anything else.

People have required annual mental health check-ups. Pass and you enjoy all rights and responsibilities of being part of society. Don’t pass and you enjoy your stay in a humane, caring institution without access to harmful things until you can safely rejoin society.

I believe most Americans would support this proposal.

You make it seem like there are two black-and-white possibilities: 100% mentally healthy, and requiring institutionalization. In fact there are millions of people who have mental health issues which they treat through medication and/or counseling, and are productive members of society.

At the same time, citizens of the UK, Australia and Japan also struggle with mental health but they have orders of magnitude fewer gun deaths per capita. Maybe mental health is not the issue.

In any case, let's look at Sandy Hook. As far as we know, the owner of the gun (the shooter's mother) had no mental health issues. So do we need to mentally screen all residents of a home in order for one of them to own a gun?

DP... How about having that annual checkup only apply to gun purchase and ownership, and if you pass you get to keep your gun, if you fail, you give up your gun? Seems a hell of a lot more easy to implement and a less insane than institutionalizing a huge swath of the population.

That's what I thought the PP at 14:36 meant when I agreed with them. It's a good start, but it still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook since it was the son of the gun owner who was mentally ill. It's also difficult to implement - many gun owners wouldn't trust to government to perform an unbiased mental health evaluation.

The fix for Sandy Hook is that you can't have guns accessible to a mentally ill person. That means you either can't have guns in the house at all or you are required to keep them locked away and totally inaccessible to the mentally ill person.

^ and if the mentally ill person somehow gets at your guns because you didn't secure them then you're also liable.

Michigan was a good start. If your kid is the school shooter, then you need to be investigated and potentially charged.

I agree, both those parents in Michigan deserve the sentences they got. Enforcing the law after the fact is one thing - but how do you prevent future incidents? Are states going to need to create a registry of people who are not mentally ill, similar to the registry each state keeps of licensed drivers?

Either of those parents should have even been charged. This case comes back on appeal.