Orlando Shooting

[gem]

Also, I agree guns aren't the whole problem. I would love to see a gun control bill linked to a bill to increase funding for mental health -- would that make sense? Is there another more comprehensive approach?

[HouseofWool]

I can't imagine that a wholesale ban on guns will ever succeed in this country. However there are some relatively simply rules we can put into place to restrict access to those who shouldn't have them.

1. Universal background checks, including finger prints. Mental Health providers must be allowed to notify the databases if someone should not be allowed to own a gun without it being a HIPAA violation.

2. Absolutely every transfer of ownership is subject to a background check. Every single one. Every sale. Every gift. Every inheritance.

3. Gun owners must have a license, just like drivers. It must be renewed periodically with actual testing. My dad (a former police officer) has a conceal carry license that requires him to range test every two years.

4. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, the registered owner of the gun may possibly held liable for its use. If a gun is stolen, report it. Know where your guns are.

5. If you are on the no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun. The corollary is that there needs to be due process to be removed from the list if necessary. Currently, there is not.

6. High capacity magazines (greater than 10 rounds) are illegal.

7. Mandatory 7-10 waiting periods to get a gun.

I'm sure that there are other things that make sense, but these seem to be the heavy hitters.

[gem]

I know nothing about the NRA other than the fact that I throw away a lot of junk mail from them. I assume they're a bunch of crazies too, just a different kind.

Sent from Tapatalk

Crazy like a fox with all their millions of dollars influencing every election cycle.

[ladymoreta]

Bear with me, starting off with an example that generalizes Republicans and Democrats. I acknowledge there are differences within parties, but this generalization simplifies what I'm trying to say. Republicans wanted to make abortion illegal (to different extents occasionally with some exceptions), but they knew it would never pass and the Supreme Court would never uphold it. So what they did is fund a bunch of research to come up with reasons to make certain things illegal or required to the point where they are virtually unavailable to a lot of women. Now they are on the other side of an argument. Democrats want to make guns illegal (to different extents occasionally with some exceptions), but they know it will never pass. So they are working on removing the ban on gun research funding, and they are looking at ways to make them unavailable in some cases. Republicans know what they did and how they did it, and they see that this is where Democrats are wanting to go with gun laws. This is why there has been so much hoarding of guns and ammo over the past 8 years of a democratic presidency.

I think there are a lot of people in the middle who want to tighten restrictions, increase liability, and fund research that will make guns safer without removing people's ability to own most or any type of gun. This middle ground is where a peaceful resolution will be found, if it is found. If things continue as they are, we have to get used to mass shootings. If we make all guns illegal, they will go the way of prohibition, marijuana, meth, etc. because many people will not give them up. The problem is that neither side trusts the other enough to negotiate laws that will make everyone safer. (And I agree that the NRA has far too much power, but the solution to that is campaign finance reform, which is a whole other topic.)

[gem]

[MENTION=1488]ladymoreta[/MENTION] That's a really interesting perspective regarding the parallels with abortion regulation. If only we could require purchasers of guns to wait 72 hours and undergo a transvaginal ultrasound, I do think the world would be a better place.

I really hope there is some way to find common ground. I'm never going to accept mass shootings as a price of this freedom. When my son reported this week that he was the summer camp dodgeball champ, my first thought was, "good, skills useful for fleeing a gunman." That, that is F'ed up.

[diggitydot]

We are gun owners and 100% for tightening regulations. We can both increase safety AND enable responsible ownership. They're not mutually exclusive, at all.

[MrsC]

I completely agree with diggitydot. I grew up on farm in Ireland where guns are heavily regulated. Even so, every farmer had at least one. It was a necessity. When you have a fox destroying your livestock (they could take 5 or 6 lambs a night) or badgers spreading TB, what else can you do, ignore it? My Dad had to keep his two guns locked in a safe and had random spot checks from the police to make sure they were locked away and maintained. He also had to renew his gun license yearly. We were not allowed to see or touch them.
When we lived in upstate NY, there were some impoverished areas and hunting provided a lot of people with food (no joke) over the very cold and long winter. I don't believe in hunting for sport but people forget that it does provide food for some who need it.
Is there a place for guns in society? Absolutely! Is there a place for military grade weapons that are designed to kill people? No.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[ballibeg]

Thumbs up [MENTION=1139]MrsC[/MENTION]

[Cinderella]

I don't feel much about it anymore since the Newtown/Sandy Hook massacre occurred. When all the little kids were killed that was my rock bottom on this entire issue. All my grief and anguish about it was sucked out of me at that point.

Nothing changed after that and I felt that if that didn't do it then it's not going to change. Since then I've accepted that we live in a society that has mass murder from time to time (ok maybe a lot of it more frequently), and maybe someday I'll be a victim of it but I don't know that for sure.

Now it feels on the same level of a bus accident, or a ferry sinking, or a plane nose diving into the ocean, or a tornado ripping through a town and you hear about a group of people dying suddenly. I acknowledge it's a tragedy but I don't feel emotional about it for very long.

Even if it happened in my own community I don't think I would feel much different. Unless of course I was the victim of an active shooter situation then maybe I'd feel differently at that point. On the other hand I've covered standoffs with the police where there was live fire on two occasions for television news. That's part of the reason I got out of the business. It's not worth it to be shot at for peanuts.

[Windsurfer]

If most Americans no longer expect to have a government so tyrannical they'll need to form a militia to stand up against it, then it is time to slowly but surely amend the 2nd Amendment to better address what Americans really do need. Canada also managed to break free from British colonial oppression. Yet, because we did it more politely without having to hold an armed revolution, we are not stuck with 250-year old baggage like a constitutional "right to bear arms".

I realize that completely eliminating the 2nd amendment would be a daunting task, but surely Americans can find sufficient common ground to modify it a little to help curtail the horrors that neither side in the gun debate really wants to see repeated. If those who say the 2nd amendment isn't causing the mass shootings happen to be right then modifying the Amendment 2 a little, while still protecting there legitimate interests, would still do no harm and would help shift the discussion toward whatever they think the real problem is.

Most Americans would still like to believe their form of government is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. It can be, but it is never going to be easy.

[SoonerTexan]

Canada also managed to break free from British colonial oppression. Yet, because we did it more politely without having to hold an armed revolution, we are not stuck with 250-year old baggage like a constitutional "right to bear arms".

Sidenote: The fact that this happened in the last century and had more to do with the decline of the British Empire than "politeness" on Canada's part has me dying laughing over here.

[poky]

Sidenote: The fact that this happened in the last century and had more to do with the decline of the British Empire than "politeness" on Canada's part has me dying laughing over here.

To be fair, putting up with British rule as long as they did could be put down to politeness.

[SoonerTexan]

To be fair, putting up with British rule as long as they did could be put down to politeness.

Fair enough

[Windsurfer]

I am suggesting that the 2nd amendment as written is also a relic of a bygone era -- and is an over-reaction to a problem no longer in evidence. It was needed then but not now. It should be revised to better address today's needs.

Even in Canada there are widely varying views on the extent to which gun regulations are needed, but no one would ever suggest that gun ownership needs to be enshrined as a constitutional right. Coincidentally, we have less of a problem with mass shootings.

[Vanquisher]

Orlando Shooting

I fucking hate amendment 2.

I didn't have the right to vote 100 years ago. The US constitution is definitely not a perfect document, and I'm sick of people protecting it like it is.

Even still. "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." To me, this hardly means assault weapons for all.

This was written at the time of MUSKETS.

Over it.