Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:Noddaz said:There are people legally buying firearms that shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Discuss how to possibly prevent this.
The most effective and possibly least burdensome things we can do are:
Universal background checks or FFL transfer on all firearms, even private sale.
Waiting period of X time for any firearms purchase- possibly while the background check is run.
A "Must Pass" requirement for background checks.
We should also consider flexible Red Flag laws which have a clearly defined expiration period and clear method for the return of private property. These Red Flag laws would be reported on a national level and be included in background checks (for a fail) while they are active.
I agree on the waiting period, but I think UBC will be completely ineffective. First, HIPAA will prevent any mental health from being included, and second, a high percentage of these killers have zero record which would prevent the purchase. If you circumvent HIPAA and get access to mental health, then people like me who see a therapist and have a label of depression might be excluded unneccessarily, while anyone who hasn't seen a therapist (and therefore not labeled as anything) get a pass just because no one has thrown any red flags YET.
In so many of these mass shootings, the deep investigations into the shooter hasn't turned up anything at all that would have stopped the sale even if UBC had been in place.
Just to clarify... mental health restrictions for firearms are for the clinically unable (think severe autistic, etc) who do not have self-guardianship. This is not a HIPAA issue as there's a court order for who has guardianship and it's in the same verification system as convicted felons who have lost their rights.
Mental health HOLDS for firearms (red flag laws) have to be issued by a judge, not a psychiatrist. Mental health professionals report to local law enforcement the concern, the LEO brings it to the judge who holds a hearing and issues an order.
In no case is there any mechanism, or want of one, where any old thing in your chart becomes known on a background check without direct legal involvement.
gearheadmb said:Question, let's say a person makes a threat about doing a mass shooting, it gets reported, it gets investigated by law enforcement. Law enforcement finds the person who made the threats has guns. With current regulations what can they do about that? Is the threat itself a crime? Can guns be confiscated at that point?
If you make a terrorist threat you can be charged with a crime. But, mass shootings aren't considered a form of terrorism, yet.
gearheadmb said:Question, let's say a person makes a threat about doing a mass shooting, it gets reported, it gets investigated by law enforcement. Law enforcement finds the person who made the threats has guns. With current regulations what can they do about that? Is the threat itself a crime? Can guns be confiscated at that point?
The 14th Amendment (due process) has frequently been interpreted to mean that the crime is the crime. There are things that can be done, but it's pretty sketchy on the type of threat that is considered a crime. If you threaten to kill or physically harm someone, that can be a crime. If you threaten to shoplift, that cannot be a crime.
Threatening to kill someone isn't the same crime as actually killing, but a threat can be considered a crime.
Javelin said:Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:Noddaz said:There are people legally buying firearms that shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Discuss how to possibly prevent this.
The most effective and possibly least burdensome things we can do are:
Universal background checks or FFL transfer on all firearms, even private sale.
Waiting period of X time for any firearms purchase- possibly while the background check is run.
A "Must Pass" requirement for background checks.
We should also consider flexible Red Flag laws which have a clearly defined expiration period and clear method for the return of private property. These Red Flag laws would be reported on a national level and be included in background checks (for a fail) while they are active.
I agree on the waiting period, but I think UBC will be completely ineffective. First, HIPAA will prevent any mental health from being included, and second, a high percentage of these killers have zero record which would prevent the purchase. If you circumvent HIPAA and get access to mental health, then people like me who see a therapist and have a label of depression might be excluded unneccessarily, while anyone who hasn't seen a therapist (and therefore not labeled as anything) get a pass just because no one has thrown any red flags YET.
In so many of these mass shootings, the deep investigations into the shooter hasn't turned up anything at all that would have stopped the sale even if UBC had been in place.
Just to clarify... mental health restrictions for firearms are for the clinically unable (think severe autistic, etc) who do not have self-guardianship. This is not a HIPAA issue as there's a court order for who has guardianship and it's in the same verification system as convicted felons who have lost their rights.
Mental health HOLDS for firearms (red flag laws) have to be issued by a judge, not a psychiatrist. Mental health professionals report to local law enforcement the concern, the LEO brings it to the judge who holds a hearing and issues an order.
In no case is there any mechanism, or want of one, where any old thing in your chart becomes known on a background check without direct legal involvement.
I understand that, but part of my point was who goes to a mental health professional? 10% of the population? 40%? 70%? Of those who do see one, how many of them divulge traits of their personality signaling an impending intent to commit a crime? Of those who DO admit intent, how many of them would really go through with it vs just someone with a thought of it who never would pull the trigger? I saw a therapist regularly after my divorce, and still see them a few times a year for touch-ups. I myself am getting my master's in clinical counseling and have been on the other side of the couch. I'm the type who just shares everything with my therapist because I know they can only work with the information they're given. Others are very tight lipped. Then there are differences in how each therapist interprets the threat (or lack thereof)
I'm simply saying that UBCs will only be functional for:
- a small percentage of people who enlist the help of a mental health professional
- a small percentage of the above number will be of a personality type that would discuss intent
- a small percentage of THAT number who would actually have true intent
- and a yet smaller percentage of THAT number of conclusions about actual intent based on the professional's assessment of risk/threat.
Basically I'm saying, you're taking the small percentage of people who actually see a shrink, tossing it in a blender with a thousand different possible interpretations. I think you'll end up with lots of people being inappropriately restricted from buying guns while lots of people who shouldn't have a gun end up buying an Uzi and killing 50 people. Right now, if every mental health professional successfully got a judge to agree to red flag every one of their patients tomorrow and UBC were in place, I'm not convinced it would even put a dent in any gun violence, but hundreds of thousands of people would wake up tomorrow not being able to purchase a gun who wouldn't even have committed a crime..
Mental health is not just mathematics, it's berkeleying art. It's interpreting someone's thoughts and emotions based on your own thoughts and emotions then filtering it through a vastly inadequate understanding of how brains work to assign an ICD code from the DSM. It's like saying "this song is jazz," or "this painting is Impressionist."
I'm afraid UBC is going to end up screwing some people out of their rights un-necessarily and do almost nothing to curtail gun crime.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
You're confusing what UBC's do (check for legality) and what Red Flag Laws do (temporarily restrict a right based on a threat to yourself or another). Red Flag Laws have proven highly successful when well written, like Florida's, where there are multiple avenues for reporting.
Fueled by Caffeine said:Don't worry. Once the piles of dead kids bodies reach some sort of threshold, something will be done.
just need to wait for more kids to die.
That's where you are wrong. It's only certain kids and certain murders anyone cares about. And most don't care at all until the TV or someone from Hollywood tells them to care. No one cared about this issue again until very recently. Most people are so shiny and happy they don't have core beliefs about much of anything. They just go with the flow. One of my core beliefs is all murder is despicable, but there are also plenty of evil people. You can't legislate evil no matter how hard you want too or how much you fake care.
No one here actually cares about all the kids murdered in Chicago, Baltimore, St.Louis, Detroit or New Orleans everyday. Our most violent cities with the strictest gun laws make any of this discussion seem very timely and very fake.
And no one cares about the 50+ million murdered by their own governments after being disarmed. Most of you are so shiny, happy and full of E36 M3 you arrogantly think it can't happen here. We are far along that path and now many of you want to disarm law abiding civilians.
I don't recall any of you mourning the Christmas parade massacre. Those weren't the right kids. I don't recall anyone mourning Cannon Hinault executed in his front yard at point blank range by his neighbor. He wasn't the right kid either. You all don't actually care about anything but being politically correct. That's it. That's your highest value. You have no core beliefs. You care not about personal responsibility, freedom or murder.
Almost all of you mourned George Floyd, but none of you cared about David Dorn or the two kids murdered in Seattle during the Floyd riots just for turning down the wrong street.
You all only care when it is politically correct to do so. You have a very low understanding of the 2nd amendment and why it exists. You hate free speech and refuse to be open or honest in your discussions. You immediately jump to emotional pleas because that's what the talking heads do.
And then you want to complain because I'm unmoving? You're darn right you don't sway me. You don't sway anyone with well established long held core beliefs. I'm immune to this garbage tactic of political correctness. I've built up real immunity to it for good reason. I'm not about to celebrate mass murder while condemning the acts of evil. Murder is murder and all murder is evil. I will not negotiate that.
Now back to firearms. The world would be better with zero firearms. We don't and never will live in that world. Everyplace that has more restrictive firearms laws pushes the pendulum to evil. There is a reason these evildoers go to gun free zones. History also show disarmed populations become hotbeds for genocide. Many of you support this. You want to use guns you approve of to disarm anyone you disagree with. Then if they continue to disagree, you'll have them rounded up and imprisoned. If that becomes too burdensome, just shoot them and shove 'em in the ditch. Tons of historic photos document this. Knowing your desire to be politically correct above all things, many of you would gladly do this to me and my family. So no, I'm not ever going to agree.
You all want guns and love guns. You just want your preferred team to have all the guns so they can use them to do your bidding.
I wish I could gather all of you in a theater and make you watch the video of the mass murders in New Zealand and the full footage of Tiananmen square. I wish you could see the footage of cops shooting people in the back running away and the footage of the cop in Chicago that unloaded 19 rounds into an unarmed kid at about 3 yards range. I wish you all could see the reality of the situation the world is in. You're just too shiny, happy and too easily swayed by Hollywood. So no, I do not trust your judgement on this issue.
All of the above video is almost impossible to find because the reality destroys your PC position. Kids get murdered all the time all over the world. No one cares until it's the right kids. No one cares until it can be used to further an agenda. The despicable people with an agenda care nothing about the kids, only about furthering their plan. The end justifies the means always for that group.
The answer is a resounding NO. Whenever you start a discussion with pleas and conditions, you are crushing open and honest discussion. It's the standard of this site. I've been told to die in a fire here for disagreeing. Most of you cheered. Some of you looked for gasoline. Those who spoke out were silenced or banned. There is no open and honest discussion with you.
I could type one sentence. One. One sentence about a different issue that would send 80% of you into fits of rage, totally destroy your carefully crafted false worldview and be 100% true and irrefutable. Your response would be to ban me permanently.
So much for open honest discussion about anything. The only thing most of you hate more than the 2nd amendment is the first amendment.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
Nice straw man you've built up there. I think it might be time for a break.
What the hell was that?
I hope he finds the help he needs with the right therapist.
Hmmm, I don't entirely agree with him, but I can sure see how someone can get to feel that way.
Fueled by Caffeine said:What the hell was that?
I hope he finds the help he needs with the right therapist.
He isn't completely wrong either. Many of us feel this to some degree and we are tired of being shouted down feelings and not facts.
In reply to bobzilla :
it's funny he believes I hate the 2nd amendment. But you guys already made up your mind. I'm just here with my muzzleloaders.
Javelin said:Mental health HOLDS for firearms (red flag laws) have to be issued by a judge, not a psychiatrist. Mental health professionals report to local law enforcement the concern, the LEO brings it to the judge who holds a hearing and issues an order.
I can't think of a better solution but I do worry that this system might discourage those who could most benefit from it from seeking help from a mental health professional.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
There is a lot to unpack here. I'm not capable of it all.
I'm not a microphone for everyone on this site but I feel like I can pretty much assure you that no one here wants you to die in a fire. It is hard to converse with someone so resolute in their opinion, yes. But interjecting so much whataboutism and ridicule isn't helping in communicating your perspective.
I don't think anyone here is advocating for striping everyone of their guns. Just responsible avenues to obtain those guns.
I'm an engineer by trade. When I see a problem, I look for a solution. Benchmarking is a good way to obtain ideas on a solution or path to solution. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns that do not have the violence problem that we do. I'd rather we just steal their best ideas and try to implement here.
but I still believe lots more people have to die before we actually do it. And I'm afraid when that happens the result will be much more draconian than if we just talked.
switzerlsnd is a good solution. Lots of guns but little murder/crime. All guns are registered and people are liscensed. Most citizens do military service so they have training. Finland also has some good ideas.
Too many people hate guns for the same reasons they hate Pit Bulls and Porsche 911s, there were a few crap owners of each that tarnished the reputations of something that was pretty good.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
Yeah except the "bad owners" of pit bulls and 911's can't go to a music festival in Las Vegas and wound 500 people with a p car or a pit bull. Scale man. Scale and scope.
but you are not wrong.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
40,000 people die and over 3,000,000 people are injured by cars every year. 16 people die and 4,700,000 people are injured in REPORTED dog bites every year. And a bad owner could drive into a festival of people hurting hundreds with their Porsche or release a dangerously trained Pit Bull into a crowd of people, it has not happened but the reality is just as far fetched as someone shooting up senators practicing for a baseball game. The majority of gun, automobile and dog injuries are accidents, followed by self inflicted injuries (car not dog, although...) and finally intentional acts.
I am not saying that guns are not any more dangerous than cars or dogs just that many responsible car, dog and gun owners will bear the brunt of responsibility for the few that are bad owners.
EDIT and Googling Crowd killed by car shows at least 3 events of intentional acts in the last few months across the globe.
In reply to QuasiMofo (John Brown) :
You're reaching. But yes people run cars into crowds. And dogs bite people. Water is wet.
but you state that guns are not any more dangerous than cars and this is incorrect. More kids were killed last year by guns than by cars. Guns are more dangerous to kids than cars. which is a good problem to have as cars and child safety laws get better and better.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082564685/guns-leading-cause-of-premature-deaths
Case studies should never be used in a debate setting. You can always find one person who lost their leg in a freak curling iron accident on Oprah, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't use a curling iron. Case studies introduce emotion which has no real place in a debate. Yes, individual incidents like George Floyd and Sandy Hook lit fires in me, but I didn't take to the streets because of George Floyd, I took to the streets because of endemic racism. I mourned the loss of the lives at Sandy Hook, but I took to the streets for national change. I look to help solve the problem, not because a person I didn't know died in another state in a big news story. I take to the streets because those stories are an example of a problem that needs to be solved. It has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, it has to do with logical justice for everyone.
Anthony, I respect you, but we won't get anywhere with absolutist views. Your assertion that the government of an established, wealthy nation will suddenly start murdering 50 million taxpayers after they steal our guns is a little wacko conspiracy, don't you think? I mean, at least can you see how it might dilute your argument? There are dozens of nations on the planet with guns that don't have this problem, and there are dozens of nations without guns that haven't been murdered by their governments.
I believe in 1A and 2A. They exist. They're written on parchment. I also believe that the 13th Amendment defines people of color as being 3/5ths of a human, and we ratified the 14th Amendment saying that all persons are now fully one human. Not that it did much good as we still have vast inequality among races. The point is, the founding fathers instructed us that we can AND MUST change the constitution as our society assimilates new functions, new truths, new science, and new facts. Heck, we were dumb enough to write an amendment banning alcohol and then realized how stupid it was so we wrote another one saying that the first one must have been written when we were all drunk.
The founding fathers wrote a piece of literature that outlines all of the things they didn't like 300 years ago and gave us explicit instructions to change it. We have written two dozen more as times have changed, but somehow 2A is more sacred than all the rest. 2A says you can have a gun. It says nothing about how to regulate them or which guns you can have. We don't even need to change the constitution to make laws about gun ownership. If the government decides that you may own one muzzleloader, it would suck, but it would be arguably constitutional. I can't think of any possible argument that could exist to interpret 2A as giving anyone the right to own a Howitzer.
I think the real hostage here is the people who die from guns every day while massive money from organizations like the NRA prevents any legislation from actually happening. One of our biggest problems in the nation is gun death, but congress can't even say the word without millions of extremists shouting about their 2A rights and the NRA dumping billions of dollars in lobbying efforts. Last night we started judiciary hearings potentially indicting a berkeleying former US president and his entire cabinet for berkeleys sake. We can openly investigate a former president's actions, but guns? We can't talk about that, even though it's one of our biggest problems.
And (just so no one has to dig through 25 pages to find what I wrote) I am FOR gun ownership. I think it's great. I own several. But something has to change. If I have to wait 10 days to buy a hunting rifle, or do a functional background check to purchase a Mauser to add to a collection of WWII memorabilia and it ends up saving lives, great.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
40,000 people die and over 3,000,000 people are injured by cars every year. 16 people die and 4,700,000 people are injured in REPORTED dog bites every year. And a bad owner could drive into a festival of people hurting hundreds with their Porsche or release a dangerously trained Pit Bull into a crowd of people, it has not happened but the reality is just as far fetched as someone shooting up senators practicing for a baseball game. The majority of gun, automobile and dog injuries are accidents, followed by self inflicted injuries (car not dog, although...) and finally intentional acts.
I am not saying that guns are not any more dangerous than cars or dogs just that many responsible car, dog and gun owners will bear the brunt of responsibility for the few that are bad owners.
EDIT and Googling Crowd killed by car shows at least 3 events of intentional acts in the last few months across the globe.
This is a slippery slope, though. Citing that cars or knives or swords are just as effective at mass killings removes the teeth from the argument that guns should be allowed. I mean, if they come take our guns, we can simply rise up with Porsches and Ginsus just as effectively, right?
I'm being flippant, and I get your point, it's just a bit of circular logic that kinda bites it's own butt.
In regards to Red Flags, is it unreasonable to have a built in provision that legally punishes them when that its proven they falsified a theat claim or Red Flag report against someone, kinda like doxing? In a scenario like that I can imagine the legal, financial and personal harm a falsified Red Flag could cause someone, and recourse to correct the wrong would discourage abuse.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
I'm mostly with you. But, there has to be some compromise if the discussion is to be productive. I don't really care about UBCs or even waiting periods. Hell, I don't personally care about capacity. But what is the flip side? How often are suppressors used in crimes outside of Hollywood? Yet I can't even build my own without paying $200, registering and waiting a year+ and that is before buying the weapon it is to be attached to. Seems like a bit too much effort and cost to save my hearing, so I'll just keep putting foam in and cans over the top and nevermind what the range master might say because I can't hear E36 M3.
And this is why I never enter discussions on this topic. It's a rabbit warren.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
One of the problems in discussions like these is the tendency to look at the options as a binary choice. There are always going to be tradeoffs. A waiting period may inhibit a murder, but on the other hand it may prevent someone from defending themselves from an abusive ex or a stalker.
The story of the NRA being some sort of lobbying juggernaut is simply no longer true.
"Start with its political spending. The NRA shelled out just over $29 million on the 2020 elections—a big number, but down from more than $54 million in 2016. So far in the 2022 cycle the group has spent less than $10,000, according to Sheila Krumholz, executive director of OpenSecrets, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. The gun-rights group’s spending has been in “precipitous decline,” Krumholz says, although she cautions that the NRA will likely ramp up spending just before the November election."
They're small potatoes in the lobbying world measured by dollars spent--certainly not spending "billions" of dollars. What I think may explain their effectiveness is the polarization of the public and the passion 2A supporters have that consistently flips a "moderate" to a "single issue" voter--it's not a huge number but could reverse a 52-48 vote.
In this situation I fear we're addressing the change that CAN be politically executed and not addressing the issues which are a much more difficult issue (mental health, social isolation, social media, etc.) to address.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:...and the NRA dumping billions of dollars in lobbying efforts.
I have seen this mentioned a couple of times and would be interested in the source. Millions...yes...billions...I have not seen evidence of this scale of resources being spent but I might be missing it.
From the 2020 election cycle:
Source - How Much Did the NRA Spend to Support Republicans in 2020? (thetrace.org)
They (NRA) spent considerably more in 2016 ($50M).
I am not discounting their influence but the control side is certainly making grounds in off-setting the potential influence in theory.
You'll need to log in to post.
