How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

What I know is that the right has been proven wrong in this issue again and again and again.

What you typically see is what you are doing here: Democrats producing possible solutions, and the right ignoring them. Which, at the levels of government where they COULD be implemented, means blocking them. And then they go into their pro-gun chest thumping until the NEXT mass killing.

The gun epidemic is a chronic disease In 2020, death by firearm became the leading cause of death for children in this country. Thank you, Republicans!

 

I think it's a good idea.

 

That's right protect your fragile little world view.

I don't blame you I'd be scared if I were you too.

 

One of the things we can do is ban to the general public the sale of body armor. Body armor can be sold commercially to the general public without cause. Make it a law in which cause will be required to obtain body armor. For police, Special Agents, and other law enforcement personnel, this is done through their respective law enforcement agencies. For security guards and professional security companies, this will show cause for the purchase and only applies to them, along with bail bondsmen like Dog the Bounty hunter, which will be included in "private security companies" definition under the law. Thus someone like the shooter or any other robber who wants to obtain such things will be barred from said purchase. But for all others, no sale period. That is one thing.

Your point #1 will be unconstitutional now because of the Heller opinion. I do not think the ban on any such firearms will occur unless it is clearly a "dangerous weapon" like a chemical or biological firearm or a military firearm used exclusively.

Your point #2 can work if and only if due process is involved. This is the red flag laws, but special courts would have to be set up to handle these cases quickly. These will be administrative courts, not criminal or civil courts under the law with the sole purpose as to why the firearms should be confiscated due to severe mental health issues.

Gun licenses is a state issue and most states do not issue gun licenses.

Universal background checks should be done for all sales, including private sales. The problem is how to enforce it if one violates the provision. That has not been explained yet.

Modify the PLCAA and give more money to the AFT for investigations into gun manufacturers if they are not conducting lawful sales. This would include investigating the NRA for illegal gun sales as well, along with tax fraud, wire fraud, etc.

We have the technology to make guns safer and probably should mandate it at the federal level, but there are plenty out there that are too burdensome. We need to narrow down which technology to use to make guns safer besides the safety switch or the switch between semi and auto.

 

The last serious effort at comprehensive immigration reform was the bill that passed by the Senate in 2013. https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...44-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

Blocked by House Repubs because it provided for an arduous path to citizenship and because......of course........to deny Obama an achievement. You don't see Repubs do anything after mass shootings other than blocking measures including enhance background checks. Ones favored by around 90% of the public.

 

So we know suicide rates especially among teenage girls and boys are up dramatically. We know isolation is bad for people's mental health, at least that's the reason given for ending dietary confinement. And what did they do to solve the pandemic in big blue cities? They isolated kids from their friends for more than two years. Most red states ended that BS much earlier. Medically the difference in result regarding covid between states that had extended lock downs and those who had much shorter lock downs was nil over all.

The mental health issue was especially pronounced for teen girls.

 

Where do our civil rights come from if not the constitution?

 

So you think that this is black people's fault.

Hmmm Whaddaya know! Not unexpected, but still a surprise that you would say it out loud.

 

The Heller decision doesn't preclude limiting the types of weapons that can be sold. It, in fact, reaffirms it.

Red flag laws ARE due process.

I see no reason for that. A judge is a judge.

Well... that's the point. It should be federal REQUIREMENT that states issue gun licenses. Just like it's a federal requirement to possess a driver's license. And the federal government issues the minimum standards which the states can add to.

Well... by imposing penalties and jail time to transgressors. Like just about every law. We should also ascribe both legal and civil responsibility to the seller if the gun is used to commit a crime.

Not just for sale. But for not taking reasonable precautions in the design so that the guns sold to the public cannot be modified, for example.

Yes. I mentioned smart guns in an ulterior post. Strong incentives and funding for research and development should be provided by the government. Ultimately, these should be the ONLY guns that should be sold to the public. And gun manufacturers better hop to it if they want to participate in that segment of the industry.

 

Banning Guns is forbidden in the US. If that's a problem for you, Article V informs you how you may persuade a sufficient number of your fellow citizens to legitimately change that.

If Republicans Collaborate with Dems to Betray Us on the 2A, They Will Lose the Midterms. And possibly the party.

"the real issue is mentally ill kids (left driven COVID lockdowns were no help) and lax security at schools where some cretin can wander in with a rifle and hang out unchallenged. We can also point out the obvious – that disarming law-abiding citizens only empower the criminals some Democrats excuse."

"Stop fearing mean tweets from blue-checked Kaden O’Geebo of Politico and start fearing your voters."

"We saw the effect of weakness in response to the death of that fentanyl and pregnant lady-threatening enthusiast that preceded 2020s summer of rioting. It helped hamstring the response to the violent chaos. And it showed us that only we can protect ourselves – with guns. Gun sales are setting records, and it’s not because the American people think the government is going to do a competent job and not ever try to treat us like peasants as they do to the Aussies who obediently turned in their rifles and ended up locked in COVID camps."

"Guns are not a luxury. They are essential to what it means to be a free citizen."

"we GOP voters are all one-issue voters on gun rights and you best be on the right side of that one issue. Republicans, understand that if you betray us – by which we mean pass any item off the garbage Trojan Horse gun-grabbing laundry list the Democrats had been holding ready to spring the next time some worm decided to shoot up a school – then we will abandon you and you will lose the midterms."

And that's that.

 

They DO come from the constitution. You were the one who claimed they came from what people "think" (your word, not mine).

 

Quote me or you're full of it.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the constitution. Its a civil right in precisely the same way free speech, privacy and religious worship are civil rights.

 

No. But you have revealed your "moral" sense as a mere political tactic.

 

Of course the type of weapon is going to matter in whether a death happens. A .357 magnum is going to do more damage than a .22 pistol. As such a person is more likely to die from a .357 magnum than a .22 pistol. Your argument is a "duh" one. Why any study needed to be done in that regard I have no clue. I'll get to why this is irrelevant shortly.

As for the AK 15, this is the first I've heard of the firearm. And it doesn't jive with what you say about it. It's a Russian assault rifle that didn't come out until 2016 and is used for the Russian military. There is no semi-automatic version that I am aware of, at least none that I could find. Certainly doesn't fit the time frame of 20 years. Unless of course its been used in just in the last 6 years. But even then that doesn't add up as its a fully automatic weapon and since it was made in 2016 it would be illegal to sell here in the US.

Due to this I'm guessing you meant the AR 15? In any case 11 is a small number compared to 274 mass shootings which according to Everytown has occurred in the last 13 years. LINK: Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy | Everytown Research & Policy

But that aside your main argument is about "reducing ANY risk". So lets address that.

First off...its not the governments job to babysit people. Everything in life comes with an inherent risk associated with it. Even toothpicks have been known to kill people. If a person wishes to own a gun then they accept the risks involved of accidental shootings. Just like people accept the risks of drowning in a pool that they own. Or dying due to a car accident. As such using these deaths in order to promote gun control has only one aim. To pump up the numbers in order to make things seem worse than they are. Its a political ploy and nothing more. However if you wish to reduce these accidental shootings there is a simpler, far more effective way of doing it without regulating guns. Bring back gun safety classes in schools. TEACH people how to handle them safely, and effectively. Which leads me to suicides.

Japan has a forest known for people committing suicides at. They also have a higher rate of suicide than the US. Yet Japan has practically no civilian ownership of guns. (there is SOME...but its extremely rare) Even most of their police force does not have guns. Suicides are a mental issue and gun control is not going to stop them. While yes, a gun makes it easier to commit suicide and succeed, the answer to the problem does not lay with gun control (or lack thereof). The answer is in our mental health system. Which is in sore need of reform. So address that. There is no need to address gun control for this. You want to reduce the risk? Fine, address the core issue. Suicide by gun is just one of many ways in which a person commits suicide. So if you address the core issue, mental health, you will be reducing overall suicide rates thereby reducing the risk. Due to all of this using suicides to promote gun control is also nothing more than a political ploy by, again, pumping up the numbers to make the problem seem worse than it actually is.

Now lets move on to "homicides". Again, this number is inflated. How? By using the term "homicide" gun control advocates are purposefully combining both lawful killings (IE: Self defense, the very purpose of our Right to Bear Arms) with unlawful killings. Which makes the problem seem worse than it really is. Not to mention it gives the impression that a killers life is at least just as important as that of the person that defended themselves. Which its not. Frankly I shouldn't even need to explain this. Or explain why the government should not be regulating a persons ability to defend themselves.

Now, here is where the government SHOULD be involved. Criminals. Murderers. What have you. But again, gun control need not apply. Why? Because to solve this problem you don't need to address guns. There are reasons that people turn to a life of crime. What are those reasons? Well, we already went over mental issues. So what are the other reasons? Economics is one. Usually the main one. So how do we address that in order to reduce the risk that they turn to a life of crime (and thereby the use of guns)? One way is education. Its well proven that the more educated a person is the less likelihood of them committing a violent crime. And I'm sure that even you can agree that our education system needs some major reform. Get that done and you will reduce the risk of someone using a gun unlawfully.

Btw, You can also combine education with mental issues to help catch future mass shooters before the commit a mass shooting. You do this by teaching kids about mental issues from 6th grade on. Teach them to spot the tell tale signs for being a manic depressive for instance.

There are of course other things that can be done to reduce risks. None of them have one thing to do with guns. Address core issues. That is the key to reducing the risks associated with guns. That is why people say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Because the problem does not lay with guns. It lays with those core issues. By promoting gun control you are not addressing the core issues. Instead you're making it sound as if guns are the issue. As if only we could get rid of guns then all our murder problems would simply go away. That is how gun control advocates portray things.

 

Here you go.

Civil rights in the Constitution are, as I said: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Those are what law scholars have named "Civil Rights". The term refers SPECIFICALLY to political, social and equality rights. If owning guns were a "right" (and that is disputable), it would be an individual right. Not a civil right.

However, feel free to make up your own definitions within your own fantasy world. But I'm just not interested.

Thanks for playing...

 

"No"? So you jump into a discussion without first finding out what it's about?

Figures...

 

Your problem is that I understood it perfectly.

 

For the record, the AK-15 can be fired automatic or semi-automatic.

 

IIRC the 2013 bill was known to be doomed because of provisions Senate Dems insisted on including when they knew those were DOA in the House.

 

What do consider assault weapons? I have a M1 Carbine. The kind used in WWII and Korea. But it's far from being an assault weapon.

 

Already answered multiple times. For example, here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...g-a-single-shot.600040/page-5#post-1073471093

 

ANY bill that Congress Republicans think won't earn them votes is DoA. Be it immigration or gun control or civil rights.... anything. To them it's not about what benefits the country, or saving lives, or children.... To them it's about getting themselves reelected. Nothing more.

 

Blah blah blah Republicans bad blah blah blah. I guess when your argument fails all you have is hatred.

 

I DO hate people who come to power to govern only for personal interest and not to serve their country. Republicans don't seem to mind.

 

This is in response to Kalstang post 239. I thank him for his response in which he took the time to respond to me and explain his positions.

I abbreviated and no'd the comments to quickly respond to them not to misrepresent them.

1-Of course the type of weapon is going to matter in whether a death happens

2-I'm guessing you meant the AR 15?

3-But that aside your main argument is about "reducing ANY risk". So lets address that.

4-First off...its not the governments job to babysit people.

5-Japan has a forest known for people committing suicides at.

6-Now lets move on to "homicides". Again, this number is inflated. How? By using the term "homicide" gun control advocates are purposefully combining both lawful killings (IE: Self defense, the very purpose of our Right to Bear Arms) with unlawful killings.

7-You can also combine education with mental issues to help catch future mass shooters before the commit a mass shooting. You do this by teaching kids about mental issues from 6th grade on. Teach them to spot the tell tale signs for being a manic depressive for instance.

In regards to 1, thank you for conceding that. This is precisely why there was an attempt to outline fully automatics (machine guns).
In regards to 2, yes. Sorry typo. Yes The AK 15 i upgraded AK 12. Its not relevant to the discussion.
In regards to 3 lol you said you would then in 4 did not, but that was expected,
In regards to 4, that makes no sense. It is and has always been the role of governments and for that matter as well professional colleges/associations and other non profit organizations to help reduce risk in practices through training, statutes, regulations, guidelines. You call it "babysitting" but you would be the first to demand a law protect you if you wee injured and the first to sue if you were injured.
In regards to 5, your analogy makes no sense. People do not use the trees to shoot themselves. Can you try another analogy that recognizes the connection between the instrument used to kill and the killing or the instrument used to create the suicide or unintentional injury..
In regards to 6, you are again totally wrong-in fact the gun regulators and people who want gun regulations will often specifically breakdown unintentional and intentional deaths, suicides, homicides by guns and types of guns used in crimes and type of crimes, domestic violence, mass shootings, bank robberies, precisely because when it investigates what types of regulations it considers that might help reduce the risk of suicides, unintentional injuries, deaths, the restrictions or measures it creates try to be specific and NOT arbitrary-your misunderstanding reflects your own bias where you simplify all gun regulations as only looking at homicides and wanting to ban all guns or use of guns-that reflects your false beliefs-not the actual studies and anyone can find those studies on line, in public domain, in law journals and medical journals-the statistics that look at homicide rates and guns only are used to show where the increase of all homicides when there is an increase in access to guns-stats most certainly break down types of weapons, types of death, it depends on what one is researching.

Here are examples that prove my point:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-20
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/c l
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

When I discuss gun regulations to law students as a law professor I am very careful which statistics I use to show why certain regulations are created, i.e., what their purpose is, what risk they are trying to reduce. I do not teach gun regulations are a one size fits all panacea and I am not sure of any professor who does. I think people who have very pronounced anti gun regulation feelings like you do because you feel any regulation infringes on your right to own a weapon and you don't consider not all gun regulations would ban you from owning a weapon but they might focus on the extent of screening you need to go through, training you might need, both before you own a gun and after, as well as regulations as to how you store your weapon. In all those 3 categories, regulations have been shown to reduce the risk of unintentional injury, suicide and crimes with guns including not not limited to homicides.

As for banning specific types of guns I am Canadian so in Canada all gun regulation is done at the federal level. In your country it is mixed jurisdiction so each individual state defines what an "assault" weapon is and may differ on what "type" of weapon it bans or regulates the way it does. There is no uniform consensus as to what constitutes an assault rifle for example or an assault weapon. In general terms a full assault rifle when you squeeze the trigger keeps firing. Its also called a full automatic. When its semi automatic and you squeeze the trigger only one bullet comes at a time. However the term assault rifle usually is used for semi or full automatics where there is a magazine as opposed to someone loading the bullet by hand one at a time. Certainly most people do not call shotguns or specific types of rifles used for hunting assault weapons.

The problem though in the US is that your gun manufacturers now like to call any rifle a "modern sporting rifle" to avoid it being called semi or
fully automatic or so it won't be called an assault rifle given the bad publicity regarding weapons with magazines (assault weapons).

You and I know the NRA likes to argue semi automatics aren't assault weapons and get into arguments about certain guns being safe because no one uses them in homicides and when they do that they do not differentiate between unintentional injury, suicide or criminal use where there is no homicide.

I do not do that and contrary to what you may think I am not anti guns. I do argue proper screening, training before a weapon is bought and continuing training after a weapon is bought as well as proper storage of weapons all has been shown where implemented in the US and for that matter in Canada that it does reduce unintentional injuries and crimes with weapons.

I also appreciate in the US your 2nd Amendment prevents certain laws we have in Canada but your 2nd amendment does NOT prohibit gun regulations but probably prevents an absolute prohibition against all weapons. In Canada technically its possible for the federal government to ban all weapons. It has not. It regulates their purchasing through screening. It has actually banned specific types of weapons that went too far as it impacted on necessity hunters and banned rifles that were not semi automatic and used by them.

Finally I have no idea what you meant when you said: "There are of course other things that can be done to reduce risks. None of them have one thing to do with guns." That makes no sense. If regulations reduce risks associated with guns, they necessarily involve guns.