The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

And that list didn’t even include Wednesday’s or the recent shooting in Texas...

ARs are not the only issue, but they are the constant in almost all of these situations, and the damage caused in these scenarios could have been reduced if they were more heavily regulated.

crimsonaudio said:

You started a thread to discuss potentially limiting freedoms we currently enjoy - you shouldn't be surprised if some of us aren't chomping at the bit to relinquish those liberties because they *might* help. The onus is on you to give us examples of limiting our freedoms for the good of the whole. So far, based on ~300 deaths per year, you're wanting to limit mall sots of things. I'm willing to listen, but you better bring facts, not just 'I think'.

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

But handguns have been used in more mass shootings than AR pattern rifles...

Click to expand...

Not sure what the count requirement is for a mass shooting, but when it comes to victim counts of 10+, I highly doubt that is the case.

And the large-scale senseless shootings are the cases that drive these conversations.

XXIII said:

Las Vegas. Dallas. Orlando. Sandy Hook. Aurora. San Bernardino.

All, as far as I know, acted out with legally purchased ARs. Increasing the regulations required to purchase military-grade weapons would have at the very least reduced the amount of people killed in these situations. That’s as close as you get to facts in a hypothetical situation like this.

Combine that with the fact that mass shootings like these were significantly lessened when ARs were banned, and that’s enough evidence to at the very least continue the conversation.

I think it’s fair to ask that AR-advocates provide similar evidence that civilian-purchased ARs have have decreased damage or improved safety in comparison to the contrary.

Click to expand...

I think it's fair to ask why I should accept that my constitutional rights should be subordinate to arbitrary statistics of safety.

I don't need permission from the AMA or the commissioner of public safety to speak in the town square, to worship, or to arm myself.

Implicit is the assumption that if something is more dangerous than the alternative, then the more dangerous thing should be prohibited or more heavily regulated, and that assumption I reject outright.

cbi1972 said:

I think it's fair to ask why I should accept that my constitutional rights should be subordinate to arbitrary statistics of safety.

I don't need permission from the AMA or the commissioner of public safety to speak in the town square, to worship, or to arm myself.

Implicit is the assumption that if something is more dangerous than the alternative, then the more dangerous thing should be prohibited or more heavily regulated, and that assumption I reject outright.

Click to expand...

While I respect your conviction, there are some serious holes in your logic imo.

XXIII said:

While I respect your conviction, there are some serious holes in your logic imo.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to explore those holes and clarify my position if you want to be more specific.

The main point is that I reject safety as an overriding concern when it comes to liberty.

cbi1972 said:

I'm willing to explore those holes and clarify my position if you want to be more specific.

The main point is that I reject safety as an overriding concern when it comes to liberty.

Click to expand...

And I can appreciate that, but I disagree that the safety of others always takes a backseat to personal liberty. We give up personal rights everyday to improve the safety of others. I don't think the 2A should be immune from that concept. Especially when all that most people want to do is limit the ability of the mentally ill / dangerous individuals from purchasing weapons capable of causing mass casualties through stricter background checks and waiting periods.

XXIII said:

And that list didn’t even include Wednesday’s or the recent shooting in Texas...

ARs are not the only issue, but they are the constant in almost all of these situations, and the damage caused in these scenarios could have been reduced if they were more heavily regulated.

Click to expand...

ARs are not the prime constant in all of this. People are.

ANY infringement on rights will need to be imposed by due process. An arbitrary list of any variety will not do. No-fly list? No way. A single psychiatrist says you're too crazy to own a gun? Nope. Perhaps temporarily (48 hours emergency) followed by hearing(s). And not just because you meet the definition of a mental illness. There must be a credible threat. Or your immediate ability to reason must be impaired substantially (as in psychosis). And there must be a meaningful way to remove the restriction once you have recovered (yes, a number of things can cause a temporary psychosis, including alcohol/substance withdrawal and even "mundane" things like corticosteroids). You can't just say someone has depression or anxiety and in a blanket fashion dispose of their rights.

Violent felons - sure, take away the right. No problem with that, so long as a conviction is won. IOW, a simple accusation doesn't cut it (though I would be good with temporary pending trial if charges are filed and even temporary and limited time frame on domestic violence until a hearing is held on the right to bear arms question).

I would also be open to limits on magazine sizes and banning devices that allow simulated auto fire (bump stocks).

On the other side of this, we make it easier for law abiding citizens to carry in most public places and to travel with their personal weapon. Would anyone advocating control measures be open to anything like that?

crimsonaudio said:

Thoughts?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456510/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo

Click to expand...

It's very much in line with what I've been arguing for. I don't see why any reasonable person would oppose it. I don't understand why it hasn't already been implemented. And I dare say it would do more to save lives while preserving liberty and therefore has a better chance of broad support than just about any other measure proposed.

To expound a little more:

It's not just school or mass shootings where this could be effective. Even out here near the left coast this kind of tool has been missing. Just a couple of years ago a LEO was shot and killed near here. There were warning signs. People who knew the shooter tried in vain to get him help. Police said their hands were tied. They had to wait until he committed a crime to do anything. At the time there was nothing in place like in the article CA proposed. There are numerous other examples that ended with the deaths of innocent LEO's, family, friends, bystanders, etc;...

In the case of this most recent school shooting, what if some of those school staff or students could have petitioned the court to strip the shooter of his right to bear arms based on his threats and mental state? We would not be lamenting the deaths of these good people. We would not be arguing for days about why no one prevented it because in all likelihood there would not be much to talk about.

I hope this idea takes off and is implemented everywhere. I'm tired of feeling like I have to keep my eyes peeled whenever I am in a large public venue. And should I ever see the need to use this tool I'd like it available so that instead of having to say "I tried" I can say "I'm glad we got that done. I was afraid so and so would kill someone".

TIDE-HSV said:

I like it, in principle. In general, to obtain an TRO, you have to show irreparable harm to yourself. this expands that to third parties or the public at large. One main problem is that the order alone is a piece of paper. One graveyard joke which used to circulate among the legal profession was that, with an angry cop as an ex and a TRO, you were holding a death warrant. Altogether too often, that was true. There would have to be immediate action or the order might just be the trigger to hasten the event...

Click to expand...

Certainly, a RO is just a piece of paper. Without further action, you are correct. The guns have to be taken immediately and only returned if the order is reversed by whatever means. Of course, that does nothing to prevent an illegal purchase of theft but it does erect a barrier.

crimsonaudio said:

Thoughts?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456510/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo

Click to expand...

This article is common sense, and by common, I also mean ancient. The ancients argued you didn't have to return a borrowed sword to an owner if you knew he was going to use it for harm.

The article contrasts two positions: rights and privileges. These were never meant to be separated. It is a big problem for us today that we do separate these.

LA4Bama said:

This article is common sense, and by common, I also mean ancient. The ancients argued you didn't have to return a borrowed sword to an owner if you knew he was going to use it for harm.

The article contrasts two positions: rights and privileges. These were never meant to be separated. It is a big problem for us today that we do separate these.

Click to expand...

Argued as well as those who claim the Constitution is old and therefore irrelevant.

Maybe we should just repeal and replace the 2nd with something the majority can understand and support.