Virginia Gunman Told by TV Station to Seek Medical Attention
TarheelsInNj said:
@Woot I'm actually not sure that's true. I've seen some polls (of course now I can't remember where) that says most gun owners are in favor of reasonable regulations too. It's just that there's a vocal political faction that drowns them out.
Think about it... if your reason for owning a gun is fear for your family's safety, don't you want the guns out of the hands of dangerous people as much as the next person?!
I suspect many gun owners find that list unreasonable.
How did this get so far from the tragedy in VA? I was in Roanoke when it happened. A 24 year old woman and a 27 year old man were killed. It affected the whole community. These were bright, young, underpaid television personalities that lost their lives because of a man--how did they put it in the local papers?--"collecting injustices." This is a hurting community.
The fact remains that if you never sold another gun in the United States, there are enough already here to kill all of us. Do you suggest search and seizure of lawfully owned guns? I am so dismayed by gun violence and I believe something must be done, but this "no it isn't" "yes it is" isn't even close to making a dent
It's convenient how the NRA, et al, have conveniently dropped the "militia" from the 2nd amendment.
marcsiry said:
Straw man. Just because Hahaha wants to revise an outdated document to reflect different times (the amendments themselves are revisions) doesn't make her an evil, rights-stealing witch.
Where's the straw man?
I readily conceded that the 2nd Amendment might be out of touch with life in 21st Century life.
I never intimated that HaHa was evil; and have certainly never intimated that anybody was a witch.
Please explain yourself; for, at the moment, it seems that you are braying.
Should you choose not to explain; I will presume that you are thoughtless, ignorant and have nothing to offer, other than crap.
TomR
Hahaha said:
If the movement to repeal the 14th Amendment gains momentum and gets the approval of 2/3rds of the House and Senate, then it's a done deal. Happened with Prohibition.
Today, for this conversation, I'm concerned with the 2nd Amendment. As long as someone's right to own a gun trumps my right to life and liberty, I'm going to stand against it.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Your Right to life and liberty are Rights which protect you against government action. Just as our 2nd Amendment rights protect us against government action.
But, I'm thinking that you already know that.
You don't much like the 2nd Amendment? Neither do I.
As I asked above, give us a game plan to have it changed.
You might also want to address my query as to how we keep firearms out of the hands of those with mental illness.
And of course, again, which other of our Civil Liberties are suitable for disposal?
TomR
TarheelsInNj said:
I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.
I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.
Peoples' "need" to protect their families doesn't trump the concerns, or opinions, of victims of gun violence.
The family protectors' voices aren't given more weight than such victims.
Our Constitution trumps those concerns, opinions and more quiet voices.
Let us read you plan.
TomR
yahooyahoo said:
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
The status quo is unacceptable.
Do you think that a 20, 30, or 40 year mandatory minimum sentence (no parole allowed) for simple possession, would pass Eighth Amendment scrutiny?
TomR
P.s., I am oposed to mandatory minimum sentences; as well as no parole sentences.
Tom_R said:
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
What do you suggest to change it?
Colion Noir, a commentator and web series host for the National Rifle Association (NRA), warned the parents of slain journalists Alison Parker and Adam Ward against becoming "so emotional" in response to the fatal shooting of their children that they channel their "grief-inspired advocacy" to the wrong effect.
"Turning this murder into a gun control dog-and-pony show minutes after the shooting because you can’t make sense of what just happened is ridiculous."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/31/nra-host-warns-parents-of-slain-virginia-journa/205266
ParticleMan said:
Tom_R said:What do you suggest to change it?
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
Wider dissemination of non-confidential psych evaluations.
It would only be a ding in the fender of our problem, but it would be a start.
Have you anything to propose?
-------
Tarheels,
??????
TomR
What are you asking?
This thread is about the Virginia shooting. I posted an article with the NRA's contribution to this national conversation.
Tom_R said:
ParticleMan said:Wider dissemination of non-confidential psych evaluations.
Tom_R said:What do you suggest to change it?
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
It would only be a ding in the fender of our problem, but it would be a start.
Have you anything to propose?
1-Ban all guns.
2-Invasive transcranial ultrasounds (and forced viewing of them) for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Hey, it's to educate them, not to make it more difficult to have a gun.
More seriously...
Waiting periods.
Broader ability of police to have gun licenses revoked or suspended.
Ability of police to confiscate guns from anyone who is convicted of a violent crime, has a restraining order against them for threats, or at the recommendation of a mental health professional.
Require mental health professionals to recommend gun removal if they have a patient that they believe could be violent.
My only fear with that last point is it could dissuade people from seeking help...maybe?
TarheelsInNj said:
My only fear with that last point is it could dissuade people from seeking help...maybe?
if someone who is mentally ill is unwilling to get help because they might lose their guns for a period of time, some might say they are not really interested in getting well.
ParticleMan said:...
1) Waiting periods.
2) Broader ability of police to have gun licenses revoked or suspended.
3) Ability of police to confiscate guns from anyone who is convicted of a violent crime, has a restraining order against them for threats, or at the recommendation of a mental health professional.
4) Require mental health professionals to recommend gun removal if they have a patient that they believe could be violent. (Numbering added.
1) New Jersey has waiting periods. And from that which I read and hear, it frequently takes longer than the 60-90 days mandated by Statute to get a purchase permit.
2) I'm against it. Any such power should be vested in the Courts, upon application, with good and sufficient cause, of the County Prosecutor's office. Or the AG's office.
3) I'm with you until you get to the mental health professional. Was the communication confidential? Did the subject demonstrate to the mental health professional, that the subject was an imminent danger to their own person or others?
4) See 3, above.
------
TarheelsInNj said:
What are you asking?...
Tom_R said:
TarheelsInNj said:Peoples' "need" to protect their families doesn't trump the concerns, or opinions, of victims of gun violence.
I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.
I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.
The family protectors' voices aren't given more weight than such victims.
Our Constitution trumps those concerns, opinions and more quiet voices.
Let us read you plan.
TomR
I trust it's now clear.
TomR
It is not clear. I was not making a point about the Constitution. I was more referring to people exactly like the leaders of the NRA, who actually have the gall to belittle and dismiss the feelings of people who have actually been victims of gun violence, while feeding the fear of the bogeyman in others.
ParticleMan said:
Tom_R said:1-Ban all guns.ParticleMan said:Wider dissemination of non-confidential psych evaluations.Tom_R said:What do you suggest to change it?
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
It would only be a ding in the fender of our problem, but it would be a start.
Have you anything to propose?
2-Invasive transcranial ultrasounds (and forced viewing of them) for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Hey, it's to educate them, not to make it more difficult to have a gun.
More seriously...
Waiting periods.
Broader ability of police to have gun licenses revoked or suspended.
Ability of police to confiscate guns from anyone who is convicted of a violent crime, has a restraining order against them for threats, or at the recommendation of a mental health professional.
Require mental health professionals to recommend gun removal if they have a patient that they believe could be violent.
Wouldn't "Ability of police to confiscate guns... " be against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?
If we're talking in terms of practical solutions, I think more could be explored on the idea of requiring insurance, like we do for drivers.
I see it working out as making the legal owner of a gun legally responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by the gun (in terms of monetary damages, not jail time, so I guess civil, not criminal?). Even if the gun is lost or stolen. Damages would be paid for by insurance. And it would be illegal to sell a gun to someone who did not have insurance -- if you do, you, not the buyer, retain legal responsibility.
This gets around all the knotty questions of having the state decide who can own a gun, what standards to use, etc. Let the private insurance market figure it out. Heck, you even get a gun registry for free, with the benefit that it's not a government registry -- I imagine the police would be able to issue subpoenas to the gun insurance companies to locate the legal owner of a gun used in a crime, but short of getting a warrant, the state wouldn't have access to these kinds of ownership records.
Also, the NRA could totally get on board as I'm sure there'd be $$$ to be made in selling insurance to gun owners.
This seems like something a single state could do on its own, too, no need to wait for national consensus to give us federal action.
Not sure if something like this would have prevented the tragedy in VA. It does seem like it would at least slow down the process of buying a gun and encourage due diligence during gun sales.
marylago said:
ParticleMan said:Wouldn't "Ability of police to confiscate guns... " be against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?
Tom_R said:1-Ban all guns.ParticleMan said:Wider dissemination of non-confidential psych evaluations.Tom_R said:What do you suggest to change it?
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
It would only be a ding in the fender of our problem, but it would be a start.
Have you anything to propose?
2-Invasive transcranial ultrasounds (and forced viewing of them) for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Hey, it's to educate them, not to make it more difficult to have a gun.
More seriously...
Waiting periods.
Broader ability of police to have gun licenses revoked or suspended.
Ability of police to confiscate guns from anyone who is convicted of a violent crime, has a restraining order against them for threats, or at the recommendation of a mental health professional.
Require mental health professionals to recommend gun removal if they have a patient that they believe could be violent.
If a gun were to be confiscated due to no longer being eligible to own one, who else would do it?
But fine. We can create a separate organization to do it...
ParticleMan said:
marylago said:If a gun were to be confiscated due to no longer being eligible to own one, who else would do it?
ParticleMan said:Wouldn't "Ability of police to confiscate guns... " be against the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?
Tom_R said:1-Ban all guns.ParticleMan said:Wider dissemination of non-confidential psych evaluations.Tom_R said:What do you suggest to change it?
yahooyahoo said:The status quo is unacceptable.
For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?
It would only be a ding in the fender of our problem, but it would be a start.
Have you anything to propose?
2-Invasive transcranial ultrasounds (and forced viewing of them) for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Hey, it's to educate them, not to make it more difficult to have a gun.
More seriously...
Waiting periods.
Broader ability of police to have gun licenses revoked or suspended.
Ability of police to confiscate guns from anyone who is convicted of a violent crime, has a restraining order against them for threats, or at the recommendation of a mental health professional.
Require mental health professionals to recommend gun removal if they have a patient that they believe could be violent.
But fine. We can create a separate organization to do it...
What I meant is that you'd have to have a trial for each and every gun seizure. You think the courts are clogged up now, try to institute this...
None of this will be instituted. It's all pie in the sky thinking.
But two of the three categories I listed are already the result of a hearing or trisl, or have at least been signed off on by a judge.
@Woot I'm actually not sure that's true. I've seen some polls (of course now I can't remember where) that says most gun owners are in favor of reasonable regulations too. It's just that there's a vocal political faction that drowns them out.
Think about it... if your reason for owning a gun is fear for your family's safety, don't you want the guns out of the hands of dangerous people as much as the next person?!