Anti gun legislation

[thebrassnuckles]

I think that my post is not off topic, as the discussion has shifted from the original discussion of:
"Any thoughts on common sense gun control laws, maybe something that can actually be achieved as opposed to Utopian rhetoric?"

to limiting who can own a gun, CCW and why CCW should be allowed or not allowed....

I posted, due to another members comment as to how more CCW=less safe society, that statistics show that CCW holders are actually less likely to commit a crime.

I dont see how that is off topic in a discussion about how some crazed gunman illegally carried a gun into a crown and started shooting.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Erratic behavior isn't illegal. A misdemeanor drug incident wouldn't preclude him from ownership either. What's your point?

Loughner attended Pima Community College until school authorities suspended him after receiving complaints of his inappropriate behavior in class.[57][71] Loughner chose to drop out in October 2010 rather than having the mental health evaluation and clearance which would have been required for him to re-enroll.

I dont know what the requrements are for schools to report erratic behavior and recommendations to take psych evals...

but it sems like there is a point hidden in there somewhere.

maybe, instead of requring a psych eval for prospective gun owners, require them for prospective students...

or perhaps as a prerequisite for joining the military..

then no ones rights are being violated by requring a psych eval before buyinga gu, only keeping crazy people out of the military and schools....

(I think keeping crazy people out of the military is an excellent idea, after the reports of GI's tossing grenades into barracks and trying to blow their own heads off with machine guns.)

 

[ColoradoBill]

No question Dr. Hupp's personal story is a tragic one. But, IMO, it becomes even more tragic when she capitolised on her parents loss by going on the NRA dole. She tells a great "personal tragedy story" and the NRA has bankrolled and moved mountains to propel her political career so that story can continue to be heard.

Whatever it takes for her to continue to spread the word about something she believes in and is passionate about. I agree with everything she says, she is a great spokeswomen for gun rights. If the NRA wants to bankroll her, great.

 

[keezer37]

here I found some stats..

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. The firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Between the beginning of Florida’s permitting program and the end of 2005, the state issued 1,104,468 concealed weapons permits. During that time period; 3,643 permits were revoked—a rate of about .3 percent. Of those revocations; 2,941 involved a crime after licensure; 157 of those crimes involved the use of a firearm. "

"A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."

"North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law."

Georgia: "studies by numerous independent researchers and state agencies have found that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes"

in 2004, the state of Utah had a permit revocation rate of about .4 percent. The rate for revocations due to
firearm offenses was .02 percent..

between 1986 and 2003, only .8 percent of Kentucky's 71,770 licenses were revoked for any reason

in 2001, Indiana revoked about .2 percent of its outstanding concealed weapon permits

since the inception of its concealed weapons program in 1995, Virginia has seen a revocation rate of just .2
percent.

between October of 1994 and February of 1996, the state of Wyoming issued 2,273 permits and revoked
four, a revocation rate of just under .2 percent.

between 1996, when its shall-issue law passed, and September of 1999, the state of Oklahoma issued 30,406
permits and revoked only 62–a rate of .2 percent.

Are these good numbers? I know .x% looks good on paper but wonder how many people=.x%. MI ha 353 revoked. Sounds a little larger than .x%. Don't know what % had resulted in injury or death but I'm sure their faces didn't look like percent signs.
In that these are laws created thus a situation avoidable, I'll stand on my original comment with regards to the statistics:

So, I ask, is there a satisfactory percentage of safe gun owners society should find acceptable? Should society not expect all gun owners, especially CCW's to be well trained and responsible? I don't think zero tolerance is too much to ask here.

I'm sure there would still be incidences were there a solid uniform training program but that is not justification in my mind not to have one for all states and a stricter one for CCW w/psych eval.
I don't know about psych evals for students. It could be a traumatic branding for someone who has no intention of ever walking around with a gun. I'm sure most people think they are normal. I know I am the benchmark for normalcy and surely wouldn't want to find out otherwise.:snorkel:

 

[Mr. Leary]

when you buy a handgun it is a requrement (at least in ca) to prove to the FFL that you can operate said firearm , with a small safety demostration, and there is a handgun safety test you must take before purchasing a handgun. which costs 25 dollars to take(dont know where that money goes to.. but it must be some damn expensive paper they print it on)

I can kill you just as easily with my 22 revolver as I can with my AK 47, or my Ar15, or even with my vintage .303 british..

Hell my shotgun could kill the **** out of you..... and its a pump action... if I ever fix my single shot 20Ga that could put you down just as easily..

In Texas, there is no such requirement. A the age of 18, you can walk into a store and buy whatever long gun you want, 21 for pistols. No training, just a quick FBI screening for previous offenses, and in this particular case, those may not pull up offenses during their youth if the records are sealed.

I understand that killing is easy. It doesn't take an assault rifle, but you can't argue that you will successfully hose a room full of people with a single shot .410.

In California, it would seem particularly pertinant for alternative gun control legislation, rather then banning certain types of guns... and thats what this thread is all about... alternatives to doing nothing and watching our guns, ammunition, and magazines become illegal one by one because stupid or crazy people are using them.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Are these good numbers? I know .x% looks good on paper but wonder how many people=.x%. MI ha 353 revoked. Sounds a little larger than .x%. Don't know what % had resulted in injury or death but I'm sure their faces didn't look like percent signs.
In that these are laws created thus a situation avoidable, I'll stand on my original comment with regards to the statistics:



I'm sure there would still be incidences were there a solid uniform training program but that is not justification in my mind not to have one for all states and a stricter one for CCW w/psych eval.
I don't know about psych evals for students. It could be a traumatic branding for someone who has no intention of ever walking around with a gun. I'm sure most people think they are normal. I know I am the benchmark for normalcy and surely wouldn't want to find out otherwise.:snorkel:

well the "benefits" of a psych eval wouldnt be for gun ownership. (that is just an additional bonus) it would have the potential to prevent alot of tragedies such as the Virginia tech shooting, it could have preveted the AZ shooting as well. Not to mention the numerous cases of rape that occur on college campuses also have the potetial to be prevented. I dont know much about psych evals, so I dont know what exactly they reveal about the person, but I am sure that the majority of young women wouldnt mind having the warm and fuzzy of knowing that there arent as many psychos walking around their campus.

 

[Mr. Leary]

well the "benefits" of a psych eval wouldnt be for gun ownership. (that is just an additional bonus) it would have the potential to prevent alot of tragedies such as the Virginia tech shooting, it could have preveted the AZ shooting as well. Not to mention the numerous cases of rape that occur on college campuses also have the potetial to be prevented. I dont know much about psych evals, so I dont know what exactly they reveal about the person, but I am sure that the majority of young women wouldnt mind having the warm and fuzzy of knowing that there arent as many psychos walking around their campus.

Amen to that, especially because it is unlawful to concealed carry on college campuseseses (campii? ).

I have attended several empty holster events on two different campuses to try to get that fixed, BTW.

 

[Klierslc]

Yes, the Arizona shooter was a law abiding citizen and had done nothing prior that would have precluded him from ownership. A psych eval would have nailed him dead square. Many who have gone postal were law abiding citizens as well.....right up to those last few seconds/moments . They would have been revealed as well.

The government?....Whos that?...... J/K, but what I'm pointing out here is how the language gets formed when we talk about gun rights. We covered this earlier...you are the government and should have a say in how the criterion gets set.
Let me ask this hypothetical, and answer honestly: If you were allowed to actually sit on the panel and have direct input in the discussion of trying to establish what levels of Schizophrenia, history of, or propensity for Depression and impaired vision would be permissable for gun ownership...what would your inputs be?

You are ignoring those folks who would have failed the test but have NOT gone postal.....
Moving into the theoretical here, but if one is going to go "postal" one only needs to bring a loaded mag into a gun store and ask to "see" a gun that it fits....IMO, it is safe to say that someone who can bring themself to shoot a bunch of people without cause would also be willing to buy a firearm illegally.

To honestly answer your question (and I see where you are going with this) I don't know. My best answer would be too only exclude those who have shown themselves to be dangerous. You can't discriminate on what someone "might" do. Also those who need to be institutionalized should not need firearms. For the nearly blind, if you can pass a drivers vision test, then you should be able to carry--for ownership, I think that a blind person can pretty accurately defend themselves with firearms in their home based on their hearing(most won't bother with firearms though). Blind foks are already targets for criminals--why make it easier for them to be victims?

Are these good numbers? I know .x% looks good on paper but wonder how many people=.x%. MI ha 353 revoked. Sounds a little larger than .x%. Don't know what % had resulted in injury or death but I'm sure their faces didn't look like percent signs.
In that these are laws created thus a situation avoidable, I'll stand on my original comment with regards to the statistics:

I'm sure there would still be incidences were there a solid uniform training program but that is not justification in my mind not to have one for all states and a stricter one for CCW w/psych eval.
I don't know about psych evals for students. It could be a traumatic branding for someone who has no intention of ever walking around with a gun. I'm sure most people think they are normal. I know I am the benchmark for normalcy and surely wouldn't want to find out otherwise.:snorkel:

You omit the stats of those folks who have been saved by a concealed carry holder or firearm owner and those who have defended themselves. They have faces and names too.

In Texas, there is no such requirement. A the age of 18, you can walk into a store and buy whatever long gun you want, 21 for pistols. No training, just a quick FBI screening for previous offenses, and in this particular case, those may not pull up offenses during their youth if the records are sealed.

I understand that killing is easy. It doesn't take an assault rifle, but you can't argue that you will successfully hose a room full of people with a single shot .410.

In California, it would seem particularly pertinant for alternative gun control legislation, rather then banning certain types of guns... and thats what this thread is all about... alternatives to doing nothing and watching our guns, ammunition, and magazines become illegal one by one because stupid or crazy people are using them.

It may take some doing to kill a room full of people with a single shot .410, but it is pretty easy to kill a room full of people with a can of gas and a chain......just saying.

I don't think anyone is advocating doing nothing, merely enforcing the laws that are on the books and increasing both the penalties and enforcement for abuse of the right.

well the "benefits" of a psych eval wouldnt be for gun ownership. (that is just an additional bonus) it would have the potential to prevent alot of tragedies such as the Virginia tech shooting, it could have preveted the AZ shooting as well. Not to mention the numerous cases of rape that occur on college campuses also have the potetial to be prevented. I dont know much about psych evals, so I dont know what exactly they reveal about the person, but I am sure that the majority of young women wouldnt mind having the warm and fuzzy of knowing that there arent as many psychos walking around their campus.

What? So a psych eval would be required to go to college? To be a citizen? To walk in a public park? Again, you can't discriminate on the basis of a personality trait. The Irish and the Native Americans seem to have a propensity for alcoholism. That doesn't mean you can ban all of them from getting alcohol---There is a majority in both groups that does not abuse alcohol, despite their propensity.

Amen to that, especially because it is unlawful to concealed carry on college campuseseses (campii? ).

I have attended several empty holster events on two different campuses to try to get that fixed, BTW.

Not always true, but mostly....

 

[thebrassnuckles]

What? So a psych eval would be required to go to college? To be a citizen? To walk in a public park? Again, you can't discriminate on the basis of a personality trait. The Irish and the Native Americans seem to have a propensity for alcoholism. That doesn't mean you can ban all of them from getting alcohol---There is a majority in both groups that does not abuse alcohol, despite their propensity.



Not always true, but mostly....

College isn't a right. Owning a firearm is. I was merely saying that instead of putting further restrictions on our rights, put them on something that is a privilege. It is not a perfect suggestion, but the benefits that could come from it are obvious.

(besides, you'd get a lot of those crazy libs out of there:sombrero

I do not like any government regulation.. at all. I would almost call myself a libertarian, but I dont like to include myself with all the drug users that claim they are libertarians, just because they would allow them to get high all the time. I want the government OUT of my life. The less I see of them the better.

I do advocate safety. Restricting firearms isn't safety. It is, in fact, the opposite.

 

[cnynrat]

Birth right -- any right or privilege to which a person is entitled by birth.

The right to own a gun is a right conveyed by government, not natural law. One could argue that freedom is a birth right.

If you read the Heller and McDonald decisions, as well as the background materials cited in those decisions, it is clear that the court held that the foundation of the right to keep and bear arms in our 2nd amendment is the right to self defense that is a fundamental and inherent right of all humans. Some countries believe that right comes from government. A full and complete reading of the founding documents of the U.S. makes it clear that our founders believed these rights do not come from our government. The right to self defense is derived from the unalienable right to life cited in the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So lets all be honest about what the Constitution and the 2A is and is not. It is a set of principles that has guided our country for 200+ years and is subject to change and interpretation, thankfully.

Subject to change, yes. Subject to application to changing and evolving circumstances, yes. Subject to interpretation, not so much. The language of our Constitution and BOR is not really so convoluted that it leaves much room for interpretation. Reasonable people may disagree on this though

As for Heller, were SCOTUS interpreting the 2A as some kind of birth right, it would have crafted far more absolute language in its ruling. It has definitely set a strong precedent in favor of the right to own a gun -- not an absolute one. There is nothing in it preventing the states or the Federal Government from enacting reasonable registration rules.

The Heller and McDonald decisions make it clear that the 2nd amendment is a "fundamental right".

From the McDonald Opinion:

In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

In this context, fundamental is not just a nice sounding word to make the right sound important. There is a legal meaning attached to rights considered to be fundamental, namely that they enjoy the highest possible level of protection against infringement. Typically, any law abridging a fundamental right must pass strict scrutiny, which is the most restrictive level of scrutiny applied in considering the constitutionality of a law that infringes on a right (compare vs. intermediate scrutiny and rational basis).

As the court pointed out, that doesn't mean that no laws restricting the 2nd amendment rights would pass constitutional muster. However, it does mean the court used the strongest language possible in describing this right, and that any laws restricting this right would be subject to the highest level of scrutiny.

 

[Christophe Noel]

here I found some stats..

"One study found that in Florida CCW holders .

Again, I'm not anti-gun. Nor would I stretch to say I'm pro-gun. However, that post makes my point better than I could for holding gun owners to standards of proficiency.

You make compelling arguments for the responsibility of a segment of gun owners - those with a CCW permit. In most of those cases, those people weren't just exercising their right to have a gun. In otherwords, they didn't just go down to the general store, buy a Colt, a box of bullets, and then stick it in their pocket like this was 1875 in Dodge City. They qualified for that CCW permit with basic or even intensive instruction.

So, what about states like Arizona where all you need are 21 birthdays to buy a gun and stick it in your pants? What about their constitutional rights makes them safe to walk around with a loaded gun wtih no required instruction? I would have to be screened, licensed, and insured to baby sit more than 5 kids in this state!

As others have pointed out, I'm not comfortable with certain individuals walking around with deadly weapons, anymore than I am seeing the lady next to me on the freeway applying her favorite shade of eye shadow at 80 mph. I'm really not comfortable with some individuals assuming their the dogs watching over the sheep. Yikes.

 

[xtatik]

You are ignoring those folks who would have failed the test but have NOT gone postal.........

Would probably be a good idea to read through the thread. I'm not ignoring them. I've stipulated what my inputs would be. One example I've used consistently here is schizophrenia. I personally don't want that guy that sits out in front of the local quick mart while talking, yelling, and making crazy gestures off into space to have the right to buy a gun. Currently, he does have that right if he hasn't gone postal to this point. But, he doesn't have the capacity to properly own one.
No one fails the test! It is an inventory of personality traits. If everyone agrees that certain personality traits or sets of personality traits that are well-defined, scientifically known and are generally agreed upon to be precursors to undesirable behavior, then the "red flag" goes up and that person is precluded, or is said to lack the legal capacity to responsibly own and manage a firearm. Another example of legal capacity would be a three year old child. It's generally agreed that a three year old lacks the legal capacity to own and operate a firearm. Most states have age limitations for the purchase of a firearm. States would say a 3 y.o. has no legal capacity to purchase and own a gun, yet the 2A has no provision for this. Now, there are also low-functioning adults that could be said to function at a 3 year olds understanding of the world. Should this adult be precluded from 2A rights?

IMO, it is safe to say that someone who can bring themself to shoot a bunch of people without cause would also be willing to buy a firearm illegally..

This argument has already been presented (ad nauseum) and discussed. It is one of Mr. Leary's (the OP) original points. How are all these illegal guns entering that clandestine market when so many here want to portray gun owners as being responsible? Who are these "responsible gun owners" that lost control of their firearms? The reason is simple, every manner of idiot can by a gun. Many of these idiots didn't have to take a class in proper gun safety and storage. Many of these idiots shouldn't have 2A rights. But, how do we discern these idiots from the rest of us. We'd know who the idiots are if they couldn't pass a simple written test on those subjects. Assuming some of the idiots were to pass, at least we would have had their attention for half a day to engrain them with some good safety information and maybe, just maybe...a sense of responsibility. That same sense of responsibilty might help limit the number of guns that slip into the dark side.

To honestly answer your question (and I see where you are going with this) I don't know. My best answer would be too only exclude those who have shown themselves to be dangerous. You can't discriminate on what someone "might" do..

Sure you can. Would you mind if your state arbitrarily decided to began allowing auto sales and offering drivers licenses to the blind, mentally retarded, clinical insane, or ten year olds "who haven't shown themselves to be dangerous"?
These people do not have legal capacity for such things because it has been wisely determined that it would not be safe. Allowing gun ownership to these same people would also be unsafe.

It may take some doing to kill a room full of people with a single shot .410, but it is pretty easy to kill a room full of people with a can of gas and a chain......just saying.

Dooooood, seriously. Again, asked and answered counselor.
What if a guy backs his car to the house and runs a hose from his exhaust into one of the windows?
What's to keep a guy from using a chain saw from Home Depot?
What about a guy that uses a pair of pliers to ....?
What's to keep a guy from throwing banana peels in front of old people?

Do you see where this goes? Crap, the sad thing is these things have probably all been done. But, as Mr. Leary has already pointed out, overwhelmingly, these aren't the methods of choice for "going postal".

I don't think anyone is advocating doing nothing.

Actually, several people in this thread have advocated precisely that. Many who haven't been quite that closed-minded, but still lean in that direction continue to drop the same arguments. Some will think they're being clever by rephrasing the same point and then regurgitating it, but it's still the same tired re-hash. Maybe the thread has reached the point where people have gotten to lazy to read it through.

 

[xtatik]

Whatever it takes for her to continue to spread the word about something she believes in and is passionate about. I agree with everything she says, she is a great spokeswomen for gun rights. If the NRA wants to bankroll her, great.

OK, well, thanks for letting us all know that.:victory:

 

[xtatik]

Again, I'm not anti-gun. Nor would I stretch to say I'm pro-gun. However, that post makes my point better than I could for holding gun owners to standards of proficiency.

You make compelling arguments for the responsibility of a segment of gun owners - those with a CCW permit. In most of those cases, those people weren't just exercising their right to have a gun. In otherwords, they didn't just go down to the general store, buy a Colt, a box of bullets, and then stick it in their pocket like this was 1875 in Dodge City. They qualified for that CCW permit with basic or even intensive instruction.

So, what about states like Arizona where all you need are 21 birthdays to buy a gun and stick it in your pants? What about their constitutional rights makes them safe to walk around with a loaded gun wtih no required instruction? I would have to be screened, licensed, and insured to baby sit more than 5 kids in this state!

As others have pointed out, I'm not comfortable with certain individuals walking around with deadly weapons, anymore than I am seeing the lady next to me on the freeway applying her favorite shade of eye shadow at 80 mph. I'm really not comfortable with some individuals assuming their the dogs watching over the sheep. Yikes.

This was my point earlier as well. Those who have pursued and obtained CCW permission are in a different class IMO. It does make a case for gun safety education. Many could probably play a role in the education process. I'd guess that most are enthusiasts and take safety seriously. This is not the target group for this discussion.

 

[Metcalf]

I say do nothing more than make the punishment for crime more severe.

That would solve 99% of the problem. While we are focusing on a specific incidence, bringing overall crime down would be much more advantageous than trying to eliminate one set of factors in gun ownership. You are always going to have someone 'snap' and do something horrific, no matter what a test says about the person. This has been demonstrated time and time again. People do not follow some simple little model of how our brain works. It can change, it can be damaged, it can environmentally evolve or be re-programed. You will not accurately be able to predict and manage gun ownership with a psych test, and least of all not fairly, legally, and effectively.

Guns are not the dangerous thing.....people are.