Reducing Gun Violence
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
-
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
You carry insurance in those fields you mentioned due to the constant interaction with people. Brandishing a firearm and waving it around like a moron or pointing it at someone isn't exactly normal behavior and in most cases is a criminal offense.
I mean, the best route (path of least resistance) is to tack on something to your homeowners rates but that seems a little slimey, but I don't think you're going to see an outright "gun insurance" be enacted. I don't have to buy "beer insurance."
And again, I come back to the point of "punishing" law abiding, responsible citizens. Which is what this is. Would Lanza's mom's gun insurance prevented Sandy hook? Nope. Loughner? He bought 1 pistol? 6 weeks before the shooting, so he's maybe seen 1 monthly bill for his "gun insurance" - not sure how much of a deterrent that would have been. Ton's of what if's but I still think this penalizes the law abiding, more than the criminal's. Holmes didn't follow through with the required FFL transactions, think he would have stopped and got his "gun insurance" though? Probably not.
I think you need to look at intensifying background checks and severe & stiffer Penalties for failure to follow FFL protocol. Some online dealers are responsible (with "I only ship to FFL dealers" in all of their listings), so I think you need to make sure that's enforced. Seems pretty easy to me - make the dealers more like warehouses instead of private businessmen. As soon as "buy now" is selected, the transaction goes through a secure state or federal website that makes you put in your SS# or some other ID verification, and a more intense BGC is run.
Also, purchases in person: Cut the PC hippie bullshit of "no profiling" Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think I would have sold Holmes, Loughner, or Lanza a pack of gum, much less a firearm. You want to be a responsible gun owner? Probably get a haircut, make sure it isn't purple. Speak when spoken to, make eye contact, dress like an adult & not a member of the insane clown posse. Sports jerseys are ok at the stadium or on your couch, but you don't wear them to a job interview. Yes sir, & no sir go along way too.
Yes, uh, but you can't directly murder a bunch of people with beer.
-
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Funniest post of the year so far. It's still early.
-
While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.
Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."
-
Here's what New York did today:
Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.
Current owners of those guns will have to register them.
Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.
Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.
In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.
The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans. The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.
-
While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.
Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."
While still president in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was hailed by gun rights advocates because it included numerous protections for gun owners. However, it also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
Then, in 1991, four years after the controversial Brady Bill was introduced in Congress and with passage again in doubt, Reagan penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill." In it, he expressed support for a seven-day waiting period before a purchaser could take possession of a handgun, an even more stringent restriction than the five day cooling-off period that was included in the final legislation, and less stringent than the 15-day cooling-off period he signed into law as governor of California. Reagan stated that prohibitions on sales to felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill had "no enforcement mechanism" and that "a uniform standard across the country" was necessary.
Regarding handguns, Reagan stated, "This level of violence must be stopped … If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
Finally, in 1994, Reagan successfully threw his support behind the Assault Weapons Ban in a joint letter to the Boston Globe, saying, "As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms … I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary."
This has to be a conspiracy. Where is Alex Jones when you need him.
-
Reagan is always a good measure of how far right the Republican Party has drifted. They would run that guy out of the Party today, no question.
-
Do you care to discuss anything, or do you just want to play "the Hyperbole kid"?
Because I have plenty of other things to do than go back and forth with someone on the same cognitive playing field as Tom Cruise.
Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?
Says the guy who's fallback arguement is "crooks will still get guns illegally" you wouldnt sell jared loughner a pack of gum? I'm sure you'd give him a root canal, and its quite likely face to face that he didn't 'look' like a killer. How are you going to profile that? It's not as easy as racial profiling, especially with no criminal convictions. I mean a cop pulled him over the morning of the shooting and let him go. If a cop can't recognize crazy what makes you think you can?
And we're finished. Cherry pick somebody else's posts.
-
For some of the guys with real gun knowledge - Leg, Cysko, etc. - what are the distinctions that made the old assault weapons ban mostly useless, and how would you craft one that wasn't?
-
One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.
-
One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.
One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.
Actually Vapor, they used the M-16 in Nam also. They started out with the M14, and changed to the M16
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
For some of the guys with real gun knowledge - Leg, Cysko, etc. - what are the distinctions that made the old assault weapons ban mostly useless, and how would you craft one that wasn't?
For some of the guys with real gun knowledge - Leg, Cysko, etc. - what are the distinctions that made the old assault weapons ban mostly useless, and how would you craft one that wasn't?
Vapor hit it on the head. Simply just going based off of looks, not capability.
The clause "military component" or "tactical component" is also useless as it too focuses on looks (pistol grip, barrel guards etc). The media is just as clueless in this regard which perpetuates a never-ending cycle of idiocy. Reports of Holmes "wearing body armor" is the type of misinformation that leads to worthless bills that don't address real problems. Holmes wore a "tactical style" vest that allowed him to hold multiple magazines. Not unlike a fly-fishing vest that allows you to attach a bunch of flies for easy access.
Plus it (the AWBan) didn't go after practical modifications, just the superficial ones (collapsible stock etc)
For instance, I can remove the receiver from my bolt-action Remington 700 and for about $250 & a little NAPA know-how, I can alter it to accept mags. Including the 30 rounders currently legal, previously not, but forever ubiquitous regardless of the next round of legislation. I wouldn't do that, because its a nice hunting rifle, and I don't feel like hauling 30 deer out of the woods. That modification is and was legal throughout the Brady bill. Basically takes a hunting rifle and makes it a much more accurate "assault rifle" in a much larger caliber (.308 vs .223).
It seems like NY got some things right today with the bill they passed; mostly, "breaking into" the therapy room/session and intensifying their background checks.
Good for them.
The 10->7 rd magazine reduction will make a lot good people into law-breakers yet won't address any real problem. That one is for the headlines & soundbites so they can say "see we did something". Idiots.
-
As for what would be on my "AWB bill"?
Full auto's (or anything that can be selected to full auto)
Next?
Seriously though I'm of the opinion that the focus needs to be on background, mental health, & personal responsibility. Enforce that, and the word " assault weapon" will disappear from the lexicon quickly.
-
One instance of its stupidity was that it banned the AR-15, while the Mini-14 was still allowed to be sold. Both fire .223's and the Mini-14 can be just as effective as the AR-15. The only real difference is that one gun looked scary and futuristic, and like something the Army has, while the other gun looks like something out of nam. Basically, this showed that the people who threw the ban together really didn't have much of a clue of what they were doing.
Actually Vapor, they used the M-16 in Nam also. They started out with the M14, and changed to the M16
Actually Vapor, they used the M-16 in Nam also. They started out with the M14, and changed to the M16
Yeah, I wanted to say Korea, but I think the M1 Garand was still around then. Maybe just starting to be replaced with the M14. But didn't the majority of M16's suck a D back then? I was under the impression that they were very suspect for a significant amount of time in the jungle.
-
-
Thanks for the input.
Thanks for the input.
Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but I think more well defined goals of a 'ban' need to be established in addition to the vague "lowering gun violence". Start with the goals, then put measures in place to reach those goals.
Do you have specific goals you'd like to see legislation achieve?
-
Not sarcastic at all.
-
Ok.
And do you have goals you'd like to see legislation try to reach?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login