The U.S Gun Control Thread

[LDSman]

True, I liked his comment.

And your unwanted and sarcastic editing of it was, IMOHO, an insult. Which was uncalled for.

So it's not an insulting comment when directed at gun rights people but is an insult when flipped to be about gun control groups?

Care to argue about how gun control is about banning guns? Want to argue any of the facts rather than the emotional aspect? What about the people that use guns to defend themselves every day?

 

[gimmepie]

Quite frankly I don't think either of those posts were particularly fair. If you guys want this thread to remain open, you're going to have to cut crap like that out and you're going to have to start reporting it when you take issue with someone's behaviour instead of sinking to their level or employing double standards.

 

[LDSman]

House passes yet another pointless bill. Doesn't address the issues behind anything.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...versal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043

How many people have passed a background check when they shouldn't have? How many people illegally purchase a firearm for someone else (straw purchase)? You think a felon or gangbanger will go down to the local gun shop and ask the clerk to run a BC before he gives his stolen gun to a fellow gang member?

Edit.
Proposed changes to require additional items before buying a shotgun or rifle in NY. Drug test, mental health exam, BC. Must buy a gun safe that other people can't access. Must apply for a hunting license before hand. Must take a gun safety course and pass the live fire with a 90% pass rate. That's higher than the army's basic markmenship test. Plus if you have to pass this test before you can buy, how do they expect you to practice? Not every range rents guns. Add in the proposed restrictions on ammo, how do you expect anyone to pass? Oh wait, they don't.

https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?d...ext=Y&Committee&nbspVotes=Y&Floor&nbspVotes=Y

 

[gimmepie]

House passes yet another pointless bill. Doesn't address the issues behind anything.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...versal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-1193043

How many people have passed a background check when they shouldn't have? How many people illegally purchase a firearm for someone else (straw purchase)? You think a felon or gangbanger will go down to the local gun shop and ask the clerk to run a BC before he gives his stolen gun to a fellow gang member?

Edit.
Proposed changes to require additional items before buying a shotgun or rifle in NY. Drug test, mental health exam, BC. Must buy a gun safe that other people can't access. Must apply for a hunting license before hand. Must take a gun safety course and pass the live fire with a 90% pass rate. That's higher than the army's basic markmenship test. Plus if you have to pass this test before you can buy, how do they expect you to practice? Not every range rents guns. Add in the proposed restrictions on ammo, how do you expect anyone to pass? Oh wait, they don't.

https://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?d...ext=Y&Committee&nbspVotes=Y&Floor&nbspVotes=Y

I think drop to the same accuracy standards employed by police or military is not an unreasonable request, although I otherwise see no issues with the restrictions they impose.

I fully agree with you though that more needs to be done about the poor enforcement of existing gun control methods too. There absolutely must be heavier penalties for circumventing them.

 

[EnglishALT]

Could a possible compromise be that a background check should not be required for an immediate family member, but anyone beyond the immediate family require one? A father giving his son a rifle doesn't really seem to be a situation where a back ground check is required, as the father likely has an idea about his child's criminal background. On the other hand an uncle or friend buying a rifle from you seems a better case for a background check.

 

[LDSman]

I think drop to the same accuracy standards employed by police or military is not an unreasonable request, although I otherwise see no issues with the restrictions they impose.

I fully agree with you though that more needs to be done about the poor enforcement of existing gun control methods too. There absolutely must be heavier penalties for circumventing them.

I have a huge problem with the restrictions.

Drug test - who pays for it? What are the disqualifications? Who keeps this info?
Mental health exam- who pays for it? What does the exam consist of? How long does it take? What happens when someone fails?
Background check - one already occurs when I buy a gun. So I'm undergoing 2 checks? Pointless repetition.
Gun safes - they want a receipt. What if there isn't one? Is there going to be a standard on acceptable safes? Unless you go high end safes, someone with time and a crowbar can pry open a lot of safes. Or use a saw or grinder.
Hunting license - why must I buy a license first? I may not plan on hunting.

It's all a poll tax meant to drive up the cost of gun ownership. Meanwhile the criminals just steal a gun and bypass all of that.

 

[EnglishALT]

LDSman does bring up a good point if you have to pay for background checks or a drug test, then there is no real difference than making a person pay for a state ID to vote.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm not very well so a very short reply.

1. I don't think it means you need to do two background checks. I think it just further enforces the need for one.
2. Of course restrictions make it harder to get your hands on a gun. That is literally the point of restrictions.
3. The bills aren't put in place with career criminals in mind - although I think you underestimate their effectiveness somewhat there frankly - they're largely to stop spree killing which is more likely to occur when a normal person loses their shit than because of a career criminal to the best of my knowledge.

 

[LDSman]

I'm not very well so a very short reply.

hope you feel better.

1. I don't think it means you need to do two background checks. I think it just further enforces the need for one.

hmm. It seems to want the background check before you buy the gun. Unless they do away with the law requiring a check on every gun purchase, you'd get two checks.

2. Of course restrictions make it harder to get your hands on a gun. That is literally the point of restrictions.

violation of Constitutional Right.

3. The bills aren't put in place with career criminals in mind - although I think you underestimate their effectiveness somewhat there frankly - they're largely to stop spree killing which is more likely to occur when a normal person loses their shit than because of a career criminal to the best of my knowledge.

Spree killers don't usually show problems when they purchased their firearms. A mental health check only shows if you have issues right now. Not if you might develop them down the road. The Vegas shooter didn't show any issues.
The NY bill doesn't seem to say if these checks are only required once or if they are required for every purchase.
CA has had universal background checks for a decade. Studies have shown zero effect on crime.

Even Vox has run articles on it not working.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bearin...es-universal-background-checks-dont-work/amp/

 

[Nah]

Restrictions on guns (and to what degree) being a violation of the 2nd Amendment is something that's up to interpretation I guess

 

[LDSman]

Restrictions on guns (and to what degree) being a violation of the 2nd Amendment is something that's up to interpretation I guess

It shouldn't be. It's quite clearly stated:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


An aspect of red flag laws I hadn't considered. Cops take your guns and store them. If you pass your guilty until proven innocent court date, you get your guns back. Of course this is after you pay the storage fees. Daily fees per gun. Hope you can afford it. Hopefully no one damages, loses or disposes of anything from what was seized. Good luck getting any damaged or lost items replaced or fixed.
Red flag laws also don't do anything to help people. No counseling, just take the guns and leave. Sure am glad that there aren't others ways to hurt yourself or others (sarc).

 

[Nah]

"Shall not be infringed" is the part that would be open to interpretation. Is everything an infringement? Are some things not? If so, what sort of things exactly qualify as infringing upon the 2nd Amendment and what doesn't?

 

[LDSman]

Florida college student arrested for illegally modifying an AR-15 to fire full auto. Clear violation of federal law. He made a machine gun. The state has a brand new ban on bump stocks. Despite not having a bump stock, he was also charged under that law. And despite the police saying he wasn't a threat to anyone, a RPO was filed against him.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...al-machine-gun-and-bump-stock-possession/amp/

Yet another problem with these vague laws.

The House passed another gun bill. This one extends the waiting period on BC from three days to 20. Current law requires a gun purchase be completed if a check doesn't come back yay or nay in three days. This bill would extend it to ten at which point you file a waiver and the dealer has to wait ten additional days.

And 20 county sheriffs refuse to enforce a new Washington law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...te-county-sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-gun-laws


An amendment to HR 8 requires the FBI to report to ICE when illegal immigrants try to purchase firearms.

AOC threatened other dems for voting for it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocasio-cortez-slams-fellow-dems-142210809.html

 

[Frequency]

Spree killers don't usually show problems when they purchased their firearms. A mental health check only shows if you have issues right now. Not if you might develop them down the road. The Vegas shooter didn't show any issues.

This is what really makes the whole thing a mixed bag of worms. You most definitely can't predict what someone is gonna do with the gun they bought. Someone can easily tell you it's for protection or whatever and pass a psyche check, then down the line you got a situation. It's not like Japan where you gotta have an eval every 3 years if you're a registered gun owner, and go through hoops and tape to own a gun in the first place.

 

[LDSman]

This is what really makes the whole thing a mixed bag of worms. You most definitely can't predict what someone is gonna do with the gun they bought. Someone can easily tell you it's for protection or whatever and pass a psyche check, then down the line you got a situation. It's not like Japan where you gotta have an eval every 3 years if you're a registered gun owner, and go through hoops and tape to own a gun in the first place.

And a lot of people can fake being mentally sound.

 

[Frequency]

And a lot of people can fake being mentally sound.

Very much so. Now granted, I don't expect someone to get past the most observant, but since it's America where the Second Amendment has high value, who's gonna second guess the guy who, on the surface, seems normal? Even if people who are considered mentally ill are prohibited from owning guns, doesn't mean anything if they got past the metal detector that was the psyche evaluation.

 

[EnglishALT]

Banning firearms based on a psych check while at first seeming like a no brainer can lead to unintended consequences and a rather dangerous slippery slope. Since guns are a right in America, taking away that right from people based on mental condition can mean other rights can also be taken away. For example a mentally ill person may use the internet to track down someone or encourage others to harm a target. Should they be banned from the internet and be banned from communicating with others, a violation of the first amendment? Should a follower of an extremist sect of a religion say ISIS, be banned from accessing religious materials? Again a violation of their first amendment rights? Should they be searched on the whim of the police with out a warrant, a violation of the forth amendment rights?

What I am saying is if we begin to say rights can be taken away because a test says so, then there is no guarantee that they would stop with just guns.

 

[LDSman]

Very much so. Now granted, I don't expect someone to get past the most observant, but since it's America where the Second Amendment has high value, who's gonna second guess the guy who, on the surface, seems normal? Even if people who are considered mentally ill are prohibited from owning guns, doesn't mean anything if they got past the metal detector that was the psyche evaluation.

Part of the problem is that "mental illness" ranges from mild anxiety all the way to schizophrenia. Would you want mild anxiety to be the reason you can't purchase something?

 

[Frequency]

Since guns are a right in America, taking away that right from people based on mental condition can mean other rights can also be taken away.

The thing is, State and Federal Laws are in place that kinda do.....well, exactly that.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution."

As far as State Laws (A more detailed list is here, I just don't want to clog the thread with too many examples):

Alabama:

Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-72.
No person of unsound mind shall own a firearm or have one in his or her possession or under his or her control.

Arkansas:

Ark. Code § 5-73-103.
No person shall possess or own any firearm who has been … adjudicated mentally ill or committed involuntarily to any mental institution.

Kansas:

Kans. Stat. § 21-6301.
Criminal use of weapons is knowingly:
Selling, giving, or otherwise transferring any firearm to any person who is or has been a mentally ill person subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment, or a person with an alcohol or substance abuse problem subject to involuntary commitment for care and treatment.

The mixup is what LDS was referring to, which basically boils down to "Where exactly is the line for what is considered mentally ill enough to be prohibited from buying or owning a firearm?", which in MOST cases, seems to be if you've been institutionalized. But according to the APA's DSM-5, a LOT of diagnoses line up with the mentally ill label (which also lines up with what LDS mentioned), and I'm not a doctor, so I can't say what would get you sent to a psyche ward and what wouldn't Which leads me to the answer the question of...

Would you want mild anxiety to be the reason you can't purchase something?

Me personally? Absolutely not. I'm not sure if anyone has been sent to an institution for mild anxiety, though.

For the sake of looking at it from the other side of the fence, if I were to say yes, the argument is simply a matter of this: If someone with a, for lack of a better term, light diagnosis (mild anxiety) might not necessarily fit the criteria when they bought a gun, what if their mental state gets worse and they still own that gun? Better to not entertain the idea than to let someone potentially be a risk in the future, just because of "MUH RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS".

 

[LDSman]

For the sake of looking at it from the other side of the fence, if I were to say yes, the argument is simply a matter of this: If someone with a, for lack of a better term, light diagnosis (mild anxiety) might not necessarily fit the criteria when they bought a gun, what if their mental state gets worse and they still own that gun? Better to not entertain the idea than to let someone potentially be a risk in the future, just because of "MUH RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS".

Most of those state laws refer to people who went through court proceedings to be locked up. The desired gun control psych evals don't go through that process. At one point they were trying to deny gun ownership to people who needed help handling their personal finances.

1. Every single person in the world has the potential to be a risk in the future. You can be perfectly healthy right now and suffer some mishap that causes you to become a danger to everyone around you.
Thing is, that dangerous person is still dangerous regardless of a gun or not. Restricting Rights based on what someone might potentially do in the future is a terrible idea. That way lies facism.

2. And there's the annoying "redneck American" gun owner trope.

Edit: Some people even try to deny gun ownership to people with physical disabilities like being blind.

Edit:
Portugal gun owners are suffering under their slowly increasing gun laws.
https://zbrojnice.com/2019/03/04/in...erosion-of-gun-rights-in-portugal-since-2006/