I'm with you on the call in system. Hell why don't we have an app for this? Damn near everyone over the age of 10 has a smart phone anyways. It could have a 4473 built into it, have it take a snapshot of their ID and forward it all to the FBI, give you an answer in under 5 min. In the event of a denial, it could even forward the ID snapshot and the GPS location of the phone to state/local LEOs.
As to the straw purchase issue, I'd like to see more states take Pennsylvania's approach, but taken to the next level. They passed a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for anyone convicted of straw purchasing and they're already a POC (point of contact) state, meaning the 4473 goes to the State Police who contact the NICS system. What needs to be added is a direct contact from local LEOs when a background check is failed (not the 30 day wait, if ever) that way police have made initial contact with the individual and can start an investigation then without giving them 4-6 weeks to find another means of acquiring a firearm.
Florida is a POC, so I don't know what other states have/ NICS has, but FDLE has an online interface. Dealers only. There is also a (non-gunrelated) background system, but I've never monkeyed with it. I figured a system that says "Yes, procede" or "Unknown delay, see FFL to complete transaction" if it's a conditional or non-approval or whatever.
The issue there, is that the 4473 is a federal form, so it's the fed's jurisdiction. Pennsylvania's investigation would be limited to what they can find out, whereas ATF can prosecute you for lying on the form.As to the straw purchase issue, I'd like to see more states take Pennsylvania's approach, but taken to the next level. They passed a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for anyone convicted of straw purchasing and they're already a POC (point of contact) state, meaning the 4473 goes to the State Police who contact the NICS system. What needs to be added is a direct contact from local LEOs when a background check is failed (not the 30 day wait, if ever) that way police have made initial contact with the individual and can start an investigation then without giving them 4-6 weeks to find another means of acquiring a firearm.
There is another problem, the solution of which is counter intuitive, that the penalties are so big that the case has a long defense and hence big bill. Like revoking an FFL, ATF can either give you a "warning" or try to revoke your license. So ATF asked for a system where they could fine you like $250 or $500 for each minor infraction. It's not worth defending, but it is a bite that might lead to corrective action.
So with a straw purchase, rather than a major court case for a felony, 10 years/ $10,000, they could alter the system to 1-2 guns is a $1000 fine/ 6 months probation or something. 3-5 guns is a felony with a year or so. So the cases cost the person a lot, show that the system is aware of them, but at the same time cost the SYSTEM less overall, especially if routinely plead down. Heck, I'd like them to alter the 4473 so that if someone is ever convicted of a "straw purchase" they can no longer purchase a gun, even if it's not a felony.
A felony has a lot of downsides, job and otherwise. While straw purchasers may be law breakers, they may not understand the impact or something. Lots of girlfriends doing a favor for their (felon) boyfriend.
Rather than infringe on everybody's rights, nickel and dime the criminals sources so it is not profitable.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
While guns add to the issue, I believe its more of a problem of who has access to them, not the weapons themselves. Hell 99.9% of all firearms owned by civilians in the US aren't used to kill anyone, FDA approved pharmaceuticals kill more people in the US every year than guns do (and that doesn't even include the poor folks who end up switching to heroin/fentanyl because they can't get their fix off prescribed opiods.)
I think the biggest point of divisiveness between the "gun control" and "mental health" people is the lack of attention from "progressive" Democrats on the matter of healthcare in general, not just mental health. Yet these same people will push relentlessly for gun control at every opportunity.
Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer represent 3 of the wealthiest states in the Union, all constantly push for gun control, yet none of them have managed to get a single payer system going in their home states. Hell even Grandpa Bernie got pretty close, too bad Vermont couldn't find a way to pay for it.
Maybe that's the biggest issue, money. Healthcare is expensive, and its hard to get people to give up their hard earned money to pay for something they may rarely use, just to pay for those who would use it a lot more. Its a lot cheaper to just make law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen, which might explain why none of the recently proposed (or passed) gun control laws include a buy back program; just flat out bans, that and in the event that one of these previously law abiding citizens chooses to retain their now "illegal" firearms you get the bonus money from fines, court fees, and for profit prisons.
So true. They also know, gun control will not cost a lot of money, which health care reform would. So they play on the emotions of many and know others who will vote for them, will not lose their social welfare pay outs. So getting all up in arms for more gun control is a win win political battle for them.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
There are reasonable limits and there are unreasonable ones. I have no issue with improving back ground checks and universal ones across the board for any gun sales or transfers. Ohio at the present has such a bill in the State House to consider. I support that bill.
Banning bumpstocks or any device which allows a semi-auto rifle to mimic automatic fire, is another one I support.
Banning AR-15's and limiting magazine capacity is just a over emotional reaction without any tangible proof they are any more dangerous or deadly than any other semi-auto rifle with only a 10 round magazine. But it takes those who are very familiar with firearms to know it is very easy and fast to switch them out with not a lot of training. The school shooting with the highest death count ( 32 ) was done when the shooter only used 2 handguns.
- - - Updated - - -
But they do. I know, the truth can be a bitch at times.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
The NRA ( like any large private organization ) is not one I would agree with all the time. I do know according to a poll taken a while back, 74% of NRA members do support universal back ground checks. But overall, they are strong advocates for the Second Amendment and for this reason, I do support them. So you have to look at the overall picture to judge if you should support something or not.
Money in politics is a fact of life and it has been going on long before ether of us were born. Not that I like it necessarily, but it is just the way it is. But even with that, it is not always a bad thing if the donated money is helping to protect something you feel is important. The American Medical Association do their own influence in politics.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
Well, you do have your own support agenda. That is all I was referring to. And you will vote according to how any candidate supports what you feel is important. Just like myself.
A private organization/club are usually not run using a democratic process from it's members. They have a board of directors who determine what the organizations will stand for or against. If they start to lose members on a large scale, then of course they would look at why. The NRA does not have a membership number issue. Because it's members support what they do as a whole.
Well, you are free to write your representatives and ask them to support and introduce bills which would address donations for political candidates. Just remember, getting what you want, you may lose some of the things you do support.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
Let me first start out by saying I appreciate your well thought out response and honest dialog with zero name calling and talking down to. Its refreshing. There is so much here to unpack I dont know if I will get to address all your points but here goes.
I realize there are issues with my approach of reporting other people. However to be honest that is the only way you will get someone who needs help the help they need. Even if it is just a call to police and have the police evaluate the situation to see if the person in question needs treatment. I dont see it as "unlawful imprisonment" I see it as "treatment". I wasnt suggesting we legislate the stigma away, I am aware that cant be done. WE as a nation, as a society must view mental health as a serious issue. Even if it wasnt an issue with guns. Why should we be content allowing our "crazy" paranoid uncles all over this county to continue to be a danger to anyone who they may come in contact with? Having a therapist to talk to about problems could mean the difference between a kid being bullied at school from getting real help dealing with an issue or shooting up the school.
I agree with these steps, however I would just like to mention that the item in bold doesnt mean squat. Just because you have a third part managing benfits does no mean you are not fit to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with having a court appointed psychiatrist deal with them as well.
I have absolutely nothing against this and proposed training for every class of weapon a person wants to own. The problem is this, people are people. What does that mean. Go for a drive around town, witness all the people who disobey traffic laws. Its not because they werent trained. Its because they dont care, there are no cops around to enforce the traffic laws. The moment a cops appears, people do the speed limits, they use turn signals, they obey stop signs and traffic lights. This is all to say, people will do whatever they need to do to pass a silly test. No amount of training will force them to use what they learned once they leave the testing facility.
Which is why repealing the order Obama put in place was a good thing. Any rights the citizens lose, needs to be done thru the court officials. Due process and all.
Another good example of why we should have stricter punishment and enforcement of the gun control laws we already have on the books.
Well said pete.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
Yep. Just like I like what I heard about the Democrat who won the Penn special election. He said he was pro gun rights, among some other conservative rights. Going to be interesting to see what his record reveals later on this stance he claimed. But it was good to see a moderate Democrat winning.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we? Opinion articles just don't do it for me.
According to the FBI:
- Between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 mass shootings.
- In 13.1% of incidents, unarmed citizens stopped the shooting by restraining the shooter
- In 3.1% of incidents, armed citizens stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide
- In 38.7% of incidents, law enforcement stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide
- In 23.1% of incidents, the shooter committed suicide without being engaged by citizens or law enforcement
- In 18.7% of incidents, the shooter fled before law enforcement arrived and without being engaged
So, 3.1% of mass shootings are ended by citizens with guns in a country where there are as many guns as citizens. Is this the evidence you're citing? By the way, compare this to the 3.1% of mass shootings wherein security guards were killed. Those aren't good odds. While I wouldn't claim that armed civilians or security guards are useless for stopping mass shootings, I would question this strategy as a potential solution for the problem at hand, and I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate from this data that posting armed security guards in schools will end mass shootings (as we saw most recently with the armed deputy who didn't even engage the shooter at Parkland).
But this is only a consideration of the benefits. What about the costs? Posting security guards at every school has obvious costs, and comes with obvious risks (escalation of petty high school conflicts, accidents, etc). Arming teachers comes with risks that are definitely too high to warrant implementation. Are these risks worth the meager benefits? I don't think so. And your emotion-laden op-ed hasn't changed my opinion on this.
- - - Updated - - -
Guns don't have the same utility as cars. Next.
- - - Updated - - -
- Forcing medical care on people is not constitutional and violates rights to autonomy.
- It's not just harder because of stigma - it's harder because people with mental health problems often do not seek aid or are unwilling to get help. Which goes back to the previous point of forcing medical care on people.
- We already have a system in place where mental health concerns can be reported to police. Police cannot arrest someone on the basis of them having mental health problems unless there is a direct threat. Are you suggesting that this be changed?
- Saying that all mass shooters have mental health problems simply because they are mass shooters is disingenuous. Before they commit the crime, do they have mental health problems? What if they suddenly just snap and kill people? Did they have mental health problems before then? How would you identify those people? How would you convince them that they need help if they are planning to kill people? Do you think that they would reveal all of their plans to medical professionals? Also, everyone has bad days; guns make it easy to find 'solutions' to temporarily negative situations.
- What is the treatment you propose? What happens when potential shooters do not want to seek care? Can you offer a single example of a shooter that attempted to get mental health care, but was denied or could not due to circumstance? Because those would be the only cases that could be potentially resolved by your proposed solutions.
- Gun control is simple. And I said 'especially' dangerous ones. Some people might say that this definition includes all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns. I might agree. There are easy ways to quantify the killing potential of a firearm - and this is something that's much easier to do than quantifying mental health status.
- - - Updated - - -
Teachers shouldn't carry guns - not just because I don't trust teachers in their high stress positions, but also because I don't trust students, who would have guns a few feet away from them at all times, should they feel the need to take out their frustration on their classmates or faculty.
Bulletproof windows and cameras without delay - sure, that's something that should be looked into. Cost/benefit analyses need to be done. I don't know how expensive it would be to fit all of the windows in all of the schools in America with bulletproof glass. It doesn't sound cheap. And while we're doing that, let's take a look at policy. I'm not saying we should ignore other potential solutions. I am saying that we should NOT ignore the most obvious, and probably most effective potential solution. Be careful to note the difference.
Mental health should be looked at, but it will not be the saving grace for gun violence, and we should not treat it as such. Like you said, it's much more complicated than gun control policies are, and approaching the problem from this angle would result in a need to curtail rights to autonomy - which makes it an inferior solution.
Or yours mine.
They both serve very important functions. To the Amish, it is horses, not cars. To a person who wants the right to protect themselves with a firearm, is not only a Constitutional right, it is a great equalizer. Still a choice which all US citizens should have.
- - - Updated - - -
Well yeah. But not to the extent New York does. For example ; a citizen should not have to give a reason to carry a handgun concealed in order to get a license to do so. This same type of gun control law in D.C. last year was ruled unconstitutional by a district federal judge.
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
It's odd that the gun/car comparison keeps being brought up, but then dismissed when it doesn't work out. I mean, really the discussion isn't about people having guns, it's about private citizens having guns. Cops will still have guns, army, security guards probably. So yeah, cars have more utility, but private ownership of cars is not required, is it? The environment would be much better off without such. You could replace cars with public transportation and taxis as easily as taking guns away.
Hell, in 50 years, I'm sure there WILL be a push for self-driving communal cars and less ownership.
As shown by recent events ("gun safety" demonstration in anti-gun heaven cali, that teacher with mental issues in GA I think), guns can get into schools anyway. I think the main difference is that you're not used to the idea of people carrying regularly, whereas some of us are.Teachers shouldn't carry guns - not just because I don't trust teachers in their high stress positions, but also because I don't trust students, who would have guns a few feet away from them at all times, should they feel the need to take out their frustration on their classmates or faculty.
The issue is, the democrats will not vote for a bill that has bulletproof glass or a better security system. If it's not gun control, they don't want it. Maybe the two sides can't come up with a workable plan they can pay for, but one side isn't part of the discussion because they want gun control.Bulletproof windows and cameras without delay - sure, that's something that should be looked into. Cost/benefit analyses need to be done. I don't know how expensive it would be to fit all of the windows in all of the schools in America with bulletproof glass. It doesn't sound cheap. And while we're doing that, let's take a look at policy. I'm not saying we should ignore other potential solutions. I am saying that we should NOT ignore the most obvious, and probably most effective potential solution. Be careful to note the difference.
Again, though, my issue is that congress doesn't need to pass the Giant School Help Bill that addresses gun control, locking doors and mental health. They should be drafting some measures to increase accessibility to health care now. They don't need to ban magazines at the same time they increase school psychologist access.Mental health should be looked at, but it will not be the saving grace for gun violence, and we should not treat it as such. Like you said, it's much more complicated than gun control policies are, and approaching the problem from this angle would result in a need to curtail rights to autonomy - which makes it an inferior solution.
"I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."
If you have mental health issues that qualify you for SSDI, and you have a 3rd party collecting your benefits for you, there is a greater than zero chance you might have a condition that means gun ownership is not a great idea. Alzheimer's, for example. An Alzheimer's patient in a lucid moment might be an accomplished marksman with zero risk of committing violence. In a less-than-lucid moment, they also might forget the names and faces of their entire family and shoot the perceived strangers in their house in self defense. Their rights shouldn't be unduly infringed, so I would refuse the initial sale, refer them to a court hearing to be adjudicated as mentally fit to own a gun, and grant the sale following the hearing based on the judge's ruling. This also affords the possibility of appeal in higher courts.
Say what you will about people violating the laws when no one is around to heck, and you would be right.
Gun training isn't about that.
It is about teaching people to respect the weapon, not the laws relating to the weapon. People violate traffic laws because it is easy to do so and fairly low risk if you (and everyone else) are paying attention. Violating basic gun safety has potentially catastrophic results that you have little if any way to mitigate. I can swerve on to the side of the road to avoid a collision. There is almost nothing I can do if my toddler picks up a loaded gun that wasn't stored safely, I just have to hope I can get to the gun before they pull the trigger.
The CCW training is meant as a means to standardize the requirements nationwide and make sure that a law abiding gun owner in Indiana doesn't suddenly become a felon by crossing state lines into Illinois.
There are different degrees/stages of that disease. If a loved one or a relative feels they are a danger to others, then they should have them visit a doctor and then a medical determination can be made by a medical professional to decide if their firearms should be taken from them and then if necessary, a court order. Not just because they are diagnosed with the early stages of the disease.
We need to come up with a standard for CCW licenses which all states will recognize to avoid such. I seriously do not think Ohio's requirements for a citizen to obtain a CHL ( Carry Conceal Handgun ) license is less stringent than the requirements for one in New York. Except in New York, you have to prove you have a need for one and in Ohio, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have the right under the US Constitution. :P
" If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
“ The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams
For the Nth time, firearm ownership enjoys an express civil liberty protection in the Constitution and cars do not. That is because armed self-defense is a human right, and motor vehicle operation is not.
I love the cloyingly idiotic statistic flogging there. The first thing that 3.1% statistic confirms is what everybody already knows -- mass shooters almost always choose targets where armed self defense is prohibited. Every school shooting, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Aurora shooting, it's very hard to find examples of shootings where the target area was one in which CCW was permitted, let alone likely. There is also a pretty obvious baserate fallacy being committed -- of fucking course there are more examples of unarmed defense than armed defense, because the rate of people who are capable of trying to resist with bare hands is ~100% barring disability, and the rate of people who can attempt armed defense is far less (since it requires someone be armed, shockingly). So, that 13.1% is out of 100% of mass shootings, in every mass shooting, it's possible for people to attempt resistance with bare hands. The 3.1% number is out of only whatever percentage of mass shootings in which a civilian owned firearm was present and accessible at the time. We don't have stats on that, but wouldn't you guess that it's probably... 10%? 15% at most? So an effective success rate between 20-30% ish, vs the 13.1% for unarmed defense?