Is it time for Red Flag laws?

[pegelli]

Because the starting point is “without a background check.” The Constitution does not say “The right of people with background checks to bear arms...” It has later been modified, but with reasonable exceptions. When a father gifts his gun to his son, for instance.

But when there are many ways to get a gun without a background check (gun shows and other) there is no way to check if the reasonable exception applies. These loopholes will for sure be used by people who otherwise will not be able to get a gun so the "reasonable exception" remains a teethless law/rule because it can easily be circumvented.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Are you sure it's not the NRA lining the pockets of weak politicians for their reelection slush fund?

There are many Democrats with C and D ratings from NRA. People would just need to vote for them, no? Why don’t they? Maybe because the majority of voters still believe in the second amendment?

[Alan Klein]

Are you sure it's not the NRA lining the pockets of weak politicians for their reelection slush fund?

It's only a slush fund if the money is given to politicians whose views you don't agree with.  The NRA is like any other organization in America that provides campaign funding to politicians who support their views.  There are those, like former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who spend millions supporting anti-gun politicians.  That's how things work in a democracy.

The fact is (82%) 41 of the 50 States have no additional requirements for background checks at guns show beyond what is required by the Federal government.  Most news you read come from liberal media that are centered in liberal anti-gun states.  But the majority of states are pro gun.  Even in Vermont, liberal politician Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders supports gun rights.  Even he won;t try to take away weapons from his fellow Green Mountain state brethren. 

[Rob C]

There are many Democrats with C and D ratings from NRA. People would just need to vote for them, no? Why don’t they? Maybe because the majority of voters still believe in the second amendment?

Since when did anyone believe in the wisdom of the majority?

[Alan Klein]

Since when did anyone believe in the wisdom of the majority?

What do you suggest?  We shoot it out to determine who's in charge? 

[Alan Klein]

But when there are many ways to get a gun without a background check (gun shows and other) there is no way to check if the reasonable exception applies. These loopholes will for sure be used by people who otherwise will not be able to get a gun so the "reasonable exception" remains a teethless law/rule because it can easily be circumvented.

The fact is that the laws do protect us.  The problem is most criminals buy guns on the street where no law applies.  Even with mass shooters, they got their guns legally and passed background checks.  Just like you can't check that some driver is going to drive drunk and kill a bunch of people by passing more stringent driving licensing laws, they same is true with gun checks.  Legislation only goes so far.  More legislation only makes it more difficult for the average person who complies with the law and just wants to go about his business without constant government interference in their lives.  Nut jobs and abusers will always slip through the system whether they use guns, knives or trucks. 

[pegelli]

There are many Democrats with C and D ratings from NRA. People would just need to vote for them, no? Why don’t they? Maybe because the majority of voters still believe in the second amendment?

You're using a typical populist attack style, push your opponent in the extreme corner and then attack his so-called extreme viewpoint, but my views are not that extreme:

You seem to paint me in an "anti-gun" camp and trying to away with the 2nd amendment, but I'm not. There's just too many guns going around for that ever to happen. I just think there needs to be more checks and balances before people can buy one and it should be easier to take one away from the wrong people.

Btw, Alan K is doing exactly the same.

Are you guys really so scared of a single European viewpoint that this is the only way you can have a discussion on better rules to deal with the massive amount of guns going around in the US?

The fact is that the laws do protect us.  The problem is most criminals buy guns on the street where no law applies.  Even with mass shooters, they got their guns legally and passed background checks.  Just like you can't check that some driver is going to drive drunk and kill a bunch of people by passing more stringent driving licensing laws, they same is true with gun checks.  Legislation only goes so far.  More legislation only makes it more difficult for the average person who complies with the law and just wants to go about his business without constant government interference in their lives.  Nut jobs and abusers will always slip through the system whether they use guns, knives or trucks.

And the above is in my mind a pretty lame excuse to not try to do better, if the same amount of effort (of the NRA and others) went into more responsible gun use and better checks/balances as currently goes into protecting the 2nd amendment we would be a whole lot better off.

But since we're mostly talking past each other I'm going to leave it at this. I don't even live in the US and hardly visit these days, as you say the majority can rule as they please, however foolish and however vulnerable to lobbying and bribary (of which all sides are usually equally guilty, only one side might have more money to spend than another)

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Since when did anyone believe in the wisdom of the majority?

Not in the wisdom, but in the right to live however they please, including foolishly.

[Rob C]

Not in the wisdom, but in the right to live however they please, including foolishly.

That, Slobodan, has ever been the thin end of the very slippery wedge!

I suspect it accounts for a lot of the shit we see today across the world. There really has to be a better, more efficient way to run things.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You're using a typical populist attack style, push your opponent in the extreme corner and then attack his so-called extreme viewpoint, but my views are not that extreme:

You seem to paint me in an "anti-gun" camp and trying to away with the 2nd amendment, but I'm not. There's just too many guns going around for that ever to happen. I just think there needs to be more checks and balances before people can buy one and it should be easier to take one away from the wrong people.

Btw, Alan K is doing exactly the same.

Are you guys really so scared of a single European viewpoint that this is the only way you can have a discussion on better rules to deal with the massive amount of guns going around in the US?   

That’s funny.

Where on earth did you detect an “attack.” Where did I address you directly, let alone attack you? Where did I say that you are anti-gun, anti-2A, or extreme?

Both Alan and I responded with logical, factual counter-arguments to your posts, providing stats and sources along the way.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..l There really has to be a better, more efficient way to run things.

Enlightened dictatorship? It has been known to work occasionally (and even that depends on who you ask), but never permanently.

[pegelli]

Where on earth did you detect an “attack.”

Ever so subtly, when I say we need better rules to control guns all you talk about is people want to hang on to the 2nd amendment in a way that suggests that I'm trying to do away with it. It's not a direct ad-hominem attack, but I see it as a deliberate attempt to not have a discussion on better checks and balances by pushing me in the anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment corner. Maybe intended, maybe not intended but enough reason for me to stop here.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ever so subtly, when I say we need better rules to control guns all you talk about is people want to hang on to the 2nd amendment...

I am sorry, but that is just not true. You are making a conjecture combining my comments on two different posts: my "talk about is people want to hang on to the 2nd amendment" was in response to your post on "evil" NRA and corrupt politicians, not as a response about "better rules to control guns."

My, and Alan's, response to the latter is that the rules already exist, loopholes are not that big or relevant as most people think. Closing those loopholes would not have prevented a single mass shooting so far (no mass shooter bought their arms at gun shows, for instance, or as a gift from their father, etc.) Most of them passed their background checks.

Could those existing rules be tweaked into "better"? Perhaps. Or new rules introduced? Again, perhaps. It is easy to clamor for "better laws." But once we get to the minutia of what should constitute "better," we will realize we will be talking about the balance between too much government intrusion and public safety. How much we will be willing to sacrifice of the former for the benefit of the latter? Should we penalize 99% of citizens for what 1% might (or not) do? This is where people start to differ. Not in lofty goals, but how to achieve them.

Speaking about Red Flags... the latest incident, with the  YouTube shooter: neither mass, nor terrorist, not even a workplace violence, and yet... there were some Red Flags. Family reported her missing and maybe "about to do something." Police found her, stopped her, talked to her 20 minutes, and concluded that she is calm, composed, rational, and no danger to herself and others. She bought a gun, legally, in January, and went to a target practice. And yet, just hours after talking to the police, she walked into YouTube headquarters and shot three people, unrelated to her, and then herself. What kind of law would have prevented all that?

[Alan Klein]

Ever so subtly, when I say we need better rules to control guns all you talk about is people want to hang on to the 2nd amendment in a way that suggests that I'm trying to do away with it. It's not a direct ad-hominem attack, but I see it as a deliberate attempt to not have a discussion on better checks and balances by pushing me in the anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment corner. Maybe intended, maybe not intended but enough reason for me to stop here.

Many gun owners in America feel that those suggesting tighter rules and regulations under the guise of caring about those being harmed by guns are really after the complete confiscation of guns for political reasons.  That these people are truly against the 2nd Amendment but realize only a salami approach of constantly limited escalation will work politically.  So gun owners are opposed to any thing that smells like regulation.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Many gun owners in America feel that those suggesting tighter rules and regulations under the guise of caring about those being harmed by guns are really after the complete confiscation of guns for political reasons.  That these people are truly against the 2nd Amendment but realize only a salami approach of constantly limited escalation will work politically.  So gun owners are opposed to any thing that smells like regulation.   

For instance, a former Supreme Court justice:

John Paul Stevens:

Repeal the Second Amendment

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

[RSL]

He's not the only one, Slobodan. A bunch of left-wingers flat admit that they want to confiscate all guns in the hands of civilians. That's one of the things that drives gun sales and NRA contributions out of sight. Frankly, I don't understand why these anti-gun morons don't see that. I guess it's because they're morons. Obama was the most effective gun salesman in the history of the country.

[Rob C]

Well, I'm far from being any kind of leftie, yet I certainly do believe that guns, outwith the home, are a menace to any society.

Nobody ever seems to offer a sound reason why confining the use of anything not a sporting rifle to the home is not a sensible idea. A sporting rifle or shotgun has some legitimacy out in the sticks, but not that I can see, in the city.

If it's supposed to offer the possibility of defence against somebody already with a gun in his hand, then you would need to be a Hollywood hero to get your own weapon out quicker than he can pull the trigger. Yes, I do have a trace of a memory of somebody going back to get a weapon from his car and shooting some dickhead who had attacked a church or some other building.

However, if the fuzz arrives as you are standing there, gun in hand, it's just as likely that you will end up in a drawer in the morgue too, don't you think? As for the scenario that would play where several "good guys" are armed and on the scene, unless they know one another, the situation would become an even more interesting one very quickly.

Neither do I agree with the poster who wrote that some simply want to end gun ownership for "political reasons"; no, I believe the desire is for survival reasons, and has zero to do with politics. Oh yeah, politicos latch onto it and the money rolls in, but that's not to say that the civilians all see it as politics at all. A friggin' gun kills without political discrimination, the perfectly impartial executioner, you might say.

[RSL]

Well, I'm far from being any kind of leftie, yet I certainly do believe that guns, outwith the home, are a menace to any society.

You're right, Rob. When those guns go out and kill people it's a very bad thing. Same thing when those knives in London go out and murder people.

Actually, it's not the guns or the knives that are at fault. It's the people. When I was a kid there were guns all all around, yet murders were very rare. It's a behavior problem, not a gun problem.

In any case, people who think there's a chance Americans are going to give up their guns are whistling Dixie. Ain't gonna happen. Which is why this thread is so silly.

[Rob C]

You're right, Rob. When those guns go out and kill people it's a very bad thing. Same thing when those knives in London go out and murder people.

Actually, it's not the guns or the knives that are at fault. It's the people. When I was a kid there were guns all all around, yet murders were very rare. It's a behavior problem, not a gun problem.

In any case, people who think there's a chance Americans are going to give up their guns are whistling Dixie. Ain't gonna happen. Which is why this thread is so silly.

I agree with your conclusion, unfortunate as it is.

Knives were ever with us, and in Glasgow the two weapons of choice were, reportedly, the open razor and the bicycle chain. Flick knives came from Italy, and were probably better in visual design than functionality - I think that the chances of the blade becoming detached from the somewhat flimsy pin that held it in place and attached to the grip, might have been high. But as an audiovisual treat, the snick as the thing swung into battle mode was effective. Not that I was ever one for battle modes of any sort, you understand!

[Jeremy Roussak]

Same thing when those knives in London go out and murder people.

Bear in mind, Russ, that it's a criminal offence to carry a knife in public, concealed or otherwise. I remember seeing people carrying guns and being shocked, as I wasn't used to it. And the first chap I saw was obese, with what I presume to have been his family, and in Arches National Park.

Jeremy