What specific proposals other than outright bans have been made that would've stopped any recent mass shooting? Banning assault style weapons (which by definition is vague, you might as well say semi-automatic weapons) is not on the table.
Ok libs, NRA is evil, guns must be limited, I get it
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Let's start discussions with name calling and immediately taking something off the table. [roll]
I'd like to start with clip size, but I'm not silly enough to think that alone would drastically reduce these events. I'm sure this thread will be very productive.
If we don't take it off the table, we're going to go round and round about not banning semi-auto, but ban assault rifle, when in practicality there is no difference. Clip size is a starting point, but like you, I don't think it would change things drastically.
Name calling? Libs is name calling? :/
Tougher background checks, real simple. You won't stop every mass shooting but at least you are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental health problems. And that would have made an impact on the Colorado movie theater shooting and the elementary school, both cases involving people with mental health problems. Can you imagine if you were the parent of one of the slain children and you found out after the fact the perpetrator had previously documented mental health issues but was given access to weapons and ammunition?
A link has been found between psychotropic drugs and mass shooters. Nothing has been proposed there, however. Drug companies probably don't like that.
How does banning ammunition work? How do you ensure criminals don't get their hands on ammunition? Do you outlaw hunting since hunters use ammunition? Do you outlaw home protection?
Why are those who want gun control tighter considered "liberal" while those who want to trample on the 4th Amendment not?????? Please, answer.....
Those labels get thrown around a lot without much thought to what they really mean. Giuliani isn't a conservative in most aspects of the definition. Since he was tough on crime, like most former career prosecutors are, he was considered conservative. I have no beef with tough on crime, but I do care whether or not evidence is collected constitutionally. If Giuliani were a true conservative, he would never have been elected mayor of NYC.
On the prosecutor angle of things, I've known some attorneys in that field. I also remember seeing signs in their offices about how they worked for God. Technically, they work for the state, at least in my example. It's their job to seek punishment for those who have broken the law, a noble profession. I think the other side of that coin is equally as noble - seeking to defend an individual who has been accused of a crime. Whether you do that for profit or are paid to do it by the state for those who can't afford to pay someone to do it, it's still important. I'll also note that I've said it's a noble profession. I do not mean to say that all people who work in those fields of law are noble. They aren't. That's up to the person - same as if they were a doctor or an electrician or anything else.
California has already done that. They also require whats called a "Bullet Button" on all AR firearms, which is basically a depressed button that requires you to use the top of a bullet, pencil, pen, etc. to release the magazine.
Stupid question, can a Californian go to Nevada and purchase the different guns/clips? Is there any way for California to track that?
Sounds like a great job by California then (insert eye roll). Hopefully those laws were in place for this event and it saved lives. I'm not arguing that these restrictions will end these events, just hope to lessen the carnage while we figure how how to fix our society/mental health.
Technically no. You have to show your ID. Just like I can't go (couldn't go) to WV and purchase a pistol with a MD driver's license. Additionally, if you were able to, you are willfully violating the law and thus not a law abiding gun owner.
With that said, CA is pretty damn retarded with their handling of firearms. There is no grandfather clause for those who move to the state who already own AWs and standard magazines for pistols. They basically either force you to sale your stuff (which no one does), leave it with family or friends in a the previous state (not likely), or just not register the stuff in California (illegal, but the most likely course of action) which thereby reduces their ability to track these types of things.
I would guess that the other state(s) would have to have something in place that checks IDs of purchasers. As for the bullet-button, I would assume that people that want to modify their firearm would be able to do it and render the bullet-button useless.
People have done just that. Someone invented a magnetic device to stick on your magazine release. California has attempted to make that illegal as well.
You can easily modify any firearm to do with it what you want. You then make it illegal. Think of it like a car. You can buy the stock model and then mod the hell out of it up to and including "track only" modifications.
Yep and I guess that's my point - the people that want to modify firearm (or whatever) will do it...because they either 1) feel they will never get caught or 2) they have bad intentions and don't care...or 3) both.
And that's the point most of us try to make when the discussion of gun control comes up. You cannot legislate this problem away. It's too easy to work around. As I have said and will repeatedly say when this discussion arises on here, the only way to stop it is to ban all firearms or limit everyone to singleshots. Neither of which will get approved.
You would think that, wouldn't you. And yet Aaron Alexis, who shot up the Navy Yard, was able to go into a gun shop in Lorton, Virginia, and buy a gun despite (1) not having a Virginia driver's license and (2) having no fixed address -- he was staying at a hotel in DC at the time.
So you are saying we need to tighten up the reigns of what we currently have in place? I agree.
^^^ this ^^^
I've said many times on this board and elsewhere, that the solution to these incidents, if one exists, most likely won't have anything at all to do with guns.
Over the years there have been huge reductions in state mental health facilities. Correlation or causation? I can't say. But when you look at how many in our prisons are mentally ill, how many of our homeless are mentally ill, and how many of these mass shootings/killings are committed by the mentally ill ... perhaps we are looking in the wrong place.
And this guy who did the shooting yesterday liked to restore cars so he likely had the mechanical skills to modify what he wanted. Its not rocket science.
I think we need to close the loopholes as well. I know the gun show one is iffy - a licensed seller at a gun show has to do the paperwork anyway - but private sales should require it too. That gets a little tougher to pull off, basically because it's hard to police. I guess the cold comfort is that you can find someone liable after the fact if they don't follow the rules. The straw purchase thing is manageable - the purchaser and the recipient both have to pass the checks. The downside is that you can't buy a gun as a surprise gift - I can live with that sacrifice. The inheritance issue is the harder one. How do you track that? I don't think you can without a gun registry. I don't see a gun registry for existing weapons working.
I think we are only looking in some of the right places. I think the problem is more than gun availability and even more than mental health but politicians being politicians only focus on what best serves them.
Why shouldn't I be able to drive 15 minutes into VA and purchase a shotgun from Gander Mountain?
The Va TEch shooter was ceritifiable and the PC at tech wouldn't do anything about it. When the shooting started at tech, one professor said "I hope it wasn't Cho." The Colorado shooter was certifiable but his Psychiatrist could do nothing about it legally. This is the first starting point. Now yesterday's shooting should have started with good police work. Who goes to Saudia Arabia and doesn't at least trigger something in law enforcement? Whether they had the man power is another matter.
You do realize that for the Islamic religion, going to Mecca is a requirement. Right? So you are saying we should profile every Muslim who goes to Mecca each time? Domestic surveillance.....on American citizens.....hmmm, and I thought this was a democracy.
"PC at Tech" what does PC mean in this context? It's probably obvious, but I'm not getting it.
The going to Saudi Arabia thing is probably a bit difficult in this case because he was an American citizen. It probably would have thrown up alerts if he had been here on a VISA or something.
I go all over the world to and including the middle east. Should I be on a list?
It doesn't get any less complex, does it. He already had the guns, purchased legally. Do we now ban travel to Saudi Arabia by American citizens? And yet, as I read on CNN, Law enforcement sources say Farook had been in contact with more than one person who had been the subject of an international terrorism investigation by the FBI.
A lot of Muslims go to Mecca for their journey like he did. Not sure i agree with you there.
You know what is really sad, a lot of libs and conservatives in this very thread can agree on many aspects of measures that can be taken (some may be more effective than others) but our elected leaders cannot and/or will not agree. Hell, they won't even sit down together and give it a try. Is money buying them off from sitting down and working together to come up with solutions? (rhetorical)
Money doesn't influence politics. Money is simply speech. Politicians are reputable people who never allow the fact that some company or group or individual gave them a bunch of money influence their decisions. Those people were just saying, "Thanks, and keep up the good work!" ... with a cashier's check.