New gun violence thread

[AnotherNewName]

6 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

I do think federal law requires a very perfunctory FBI check before buying from a licensed store.  Not from private sales or gun shows though.  That’s what people mean when they say close the “gun show loophole”.   You’re 100% spot on on everything else.  
 

We’ve walked in to Academy, bought a gun, did the background check while we waited, walked out with the gun and ammo in less than an hour.  Only the original sale is ever recorded and only by the store. We sold a gun to a family member and only wrote up a bill of sale to protect ourselves if it was ever used in a crime, to show we didn’t own it after such and such date.  That’s just in my safe.  And that’s all LEGAL where I live.  100% legal.   

The private sales exemption and gun show loophole are the same thing.  Background checks are required for any seller who holds an FFL, which is the majority of vendors at gun shows.  Many gun shows require all vendors to conduct background checks whether they hold an FFL or not.

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, livetoread said:

I think all guns should be registered to one person and that person should be legally responsible for anything that happens with that gun.

We're required to have licenses and liability insurance for cars. Why not for guns, whose actual purpose is to kill?

[SKL]

I also think it's kinda funny that you can't have a garage sale to sell baby clothes without getting a license, but apparently you can sell any legal firearm to any random person with no documentation at all?

As for registration, I do understand grandfathering [non-banned] guns you've already purchased or inherited in the past.  I don't think it's fair to make it a crime to continue owning a thing you've had in your house legally, without incident, for however many years.  I also don't think it's right that Old Uncle Mel could be arrested for just minding his own business, possibly unaware there even is a registration law.

And if everyone's gonna have to report their gun ownership, I don't know how the government is going to protect that information from bad actors.  Wouldn't be great if criminals hacked into that database.

I fully agree with safe storage laws, and severe penalties for anyone whose failure to comply leads to injury or death.  I'd add that parents should have to document gun safety courses before kids are allowed (with supervision) to handle guns.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, lewelma said:

... a gun kit that you would construct and sand, polish, and varnish. This was in the 1970s. Kind of surprising actually.

My dad has a home-made shotgun that he built around that time.  I believe he made the stock from a block of wood, and designed and machine-made at least some of the metal parts.  I remember it being a project that gave him a lot of satisfaction ... kinda like some people get from making quilts.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

My dad has a home-made shotgun that he built around that time.  I believe he made the stock from a block of wood, and designed and machine-made at least some of the metal parts.  I remember it being a project that gave him a lot of satisfaction ... kinda like some people get from making quilts.

My grandfather was a machinist and made quite a few of his own shotguns.  He was an avid hunter and target shooter. When he died in the mid 90s my Dad had to go through a lot of hoops to get those shotguns legal and registered though. 

[Vintage81]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

I also think it's kinda funny that you can't have a garage sale to sell baby clothes without getting a license, but apparently you can sell any legal firearm to any random person with no documentation at all?

I think in most states the person selling the firearm must ensure the buyer can legally own the firearm (e.g. the buyer is not a felon or something like that). I’m not sure what legal consequences there are if this isn’t done. I assume this varies by state. Also, some states require documentation, some don’t. Here’s more info…

https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

[mommyoffive]

Active shooter drills: Do risks outweigh benefits? (substack.com)

[Heartstrings]

29 minutes ago, SKL said:

o think it's kinda funny that you can't have a garage sale to sell baby clothes without getting a license, but apparently you can sell any legal firearm to any random person with no documentation at all?

Off topic, but you have to do that?  Yard sales also aren’t regulated in my state.  Some towns will fine you if you don’t collect your signs in a timely fashion, but I can throw stuff on the drive way to sell any time I want.  The only notification I have to do is to the local Facebook groups to advertise.  

[Heartstrings]

16 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

nk in most states the person selling the firearm must ensure the buyer can legally own the firearm (e.g. the buyer is not a felon or something like that).

In my state that’s only required of licensed dealers.  You don’t have to be a licensed dealer to sell a gun, so private sales don’t have any requirements.  Which is why so many guns in higher regulation states are purchased in low regulation states. 
 

just a quick count from your link, 28 states are listed as having no private sales requirements.  That’s pretty pitiful. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Vintage81]

9 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

My main point about a registry was that most people assume we already have one, (70%) either at a state or federal level.  I’m always just floored at the mis conceptions people have about gun laws.  Most people assume current laws are much more stringent than they actually are.  If we could just get the laws *that most people assume we already have* we’d be in a different place in this country with shootings and crime.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/04/20/amid-a-series-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-gun-policy-remains-deeply-divisive/

you can click the “how we did this” button to get more info on the survey and how it was done.  

 

Regarding the bolded…I’m actually not that shocked. Gun laws can be confusing to people, especially because each state’s requirements can vary widely.

[Vintage81]

19 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

In my state that’s only required of licensed dealers.  You don’t have to be a licensed dealer to sell a gun, so private sales don’t have any requirements.  Which is why so many guns in higher regulation states are purchased in low regulation states. 
 

just a quick count from your link, 28 states are listed as having no private sales requirements.  That’s pretty pitiful. 

The 28 states you’re referring to is the column…Background Check When Seller Is Not a Licensed Dealer. 

Private sellers are not required to perform background checks. However as I mentioned, I think all but one state (Wyoming) the seller is required to ensure the buyer is legally able to own the firearm. That is the second column in the link I provided...Additional Regulations on Private Gun Sales.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Vintage81

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

The 28 states you’re referring to is the column…Background Check When Seller Is Not a Licensed Dealer. 

Private sellers are not required to perform background checks. However as I mentioned, I think all but one state (Wyoming) the seller is required to ensure the buyer is legally able to own the firearm. That is the second column in the link I provided. 

Most of them say you can’t transfer the gun if you “know” the person can’t have them.  But there is no requirement that you do anything to find out.  So I can’t sell a gun to my neighbor the felon *if I know* he is a felon. A guy 3 streets over selling the gun at a yard sale can sell to my neighbor the felon because he isn’t aware that my neighbor is a felon and has no obligation to take an action to find out.    Which makes the requirement pretty useless.  
 

Arizona is a good example. 
No one may knowingly transfer a deadly weapon to someone who is prohibited under state law

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

We're required to have licenses and liability insurance for cars. Why not for guns, whose actual purpose is to kill?

You technically only need a license to drive a car on a public road. Driving is also specifically considered a privilege under the law, while gun ownership is considered a right. I do think it is logical that anyone carrying a firearm in public should be licensed.  I am less convinced that is true for ownership.

Liability insurance is a red herring.  Most gun owners are already covered through their HO or renters' insurance.  Liability insurance only pays out for non-intentional acts and would have no impact on the vast majority of gun violence.  The fact that gun owners are covered under a broad liability policy should give you a hint that the cost of providing it isn't significant.

[LucyStoner]

10 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Active shooter drills: Do risks outweigh benefits? (substack.com)

Having picked up kids after both drills and an actual lockdown (there was a man in the neighborhood being arrested- well they didn’t tell the students that the man wasn’t in the building, they just told them that it “wasn’t a drill”), I would say that the mental health impacts of these practices may very well outweigh the benefits.  

There was a shooting (not a mass one) at my nephew’s high school this last fall.  It was scary (especially those moments before you learn that your student is ok).  I don’t want to minimize gun violence but I don’t regard the active shooter drills as really engendering safety and I’ve seen them cause intense and lasting distress.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by LucyStoner

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

I am less convinced that is true for ownership

I’d love to see some sort of minimal licensing tied to annual proof of safe storage.  Send a picture or something of your safe storage each year with a sworn statement that your using it and a $5 processing fee. It wouldn’t make people use the storage but it would make them think.  
 Many gun owners think they are being safer than they are, as evidenced by the number of kids getting the guns out of the “safe” storage.   

[Heartstrings]

4 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Having picked up kids after both drills and an actual lockdown (there was a man in the neighborhood being arrested- well they didn’t tell the students that the man wasn’t in the building, they just told them that it “wasn’t a drill”), I would say that the mental health impacts of these practices may very well outweigh the benefits.  

There was a shooting (not a mass one) my my nephew’s high school this last fall.  It was scary (especially those moments before you learn that your student is ok).  I don’t want to minimize gun violence but I don’t regard the active shooter drills as really engendering safety and I’ve seen them cause intense and lasting distress.  

I think they are more appropriate for staff and police officers to conduct when students aren’t present.  At this point doing drills with the students is just training future shooters and destabilizing all of the kids. I think it’s one of the reasons kids are so wild at school now a days, going through these drills is creating an unstable environment and making the kids lose respect for the whole system that can’t even keep them safe.   

[Vintage81]

23 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Most of them say you can’t transfer the gun if you “know” the person can’t have them.  But there is no requirement that you do anything to find out.  So I can’t sell a gun to my neighbor the felon *if I know* he is a felon. A guy 3 streets over selling the gun at a yard sale can sell to my neighbor the felon because he isn’t aware that my neighbor is a felon and has no obligation to take an action to find out.    Which makes the requirement pretty useless.  
 

Arizona is a good example. 
No one may knowingly transfer a deadly weapon to someone who is prohibited under state law

I agree these are loopholes that should be closed and that all firearm sales should be required to have background checks. 

[KSera]

8 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Again, there is a difference between regulation, which can be within the bounds of the Constitution, and using a tax to restrict a right, which is not within the bounds.

The constitution gives a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. It’s actually really clear about that, so if we’re focusing on making sure our current gun laws still match the constitution, we have a whole lot of work to do to regulate the militia. 
 

50 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

You technically only need a license to drive a car on a public road. Driving is also specifically considered a privilege under the law, while gun ownership is considered a right. I do think it is logical that anyone carrying a firearm in public should be licensed.  I am less convinced that is true for ownership.

Liability insurance is a red herring.  Most gun owners are already covered through their HO or renters' insurance.  Liability insurance only pays out for non-intentional acts and would have no impact on the vast majority of gun violence.  The fact that gun owners are covered under a broad liability policy should give you a hint that the cost of providing it isn't significant.

You’ve stated lots of things you don’t think we should be able to do to address this situation where guns are now the leading cause of death for children in this country. What things do you think we should do, or do you think all these dead children are just the price that needs to be paid so people can continue to have whatever guns they want with little to no regulation? In this latest shooting, for example, the shooter was able to buy guns from multiple stores. She was not a felon, there was nothing in the laws to prevent her from buying a bunch of guns to go shoot kids with. What laws do you think would be acceptable to have tried to prevent her from having access to the guns that allowed her to do this?

[rebcoola]

I would love more regulations.  I would gladly drag in our guns have them registered to use etc.  Right now only the 1 gun we actually bought for a shooting club has any kind of record to show its ours.  We are safe gun owners buts it's ridiculous that we have these weapons with absolutely no accountability.

[prairiewindmomma]

8 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

Gun manufacturers can be sued for defective products and for actions for which they are directly responsible.  No industry - not one - can be sued for illegal acts committed using their products.  Logically it makes no sense that a product is legal to manufacture, and which has common legal uses, but that the company is responsible for a third party committing a crime with the product. Ford doesn't get sued because of what drunk drivers do.

PLCAA was only enacted in 2005 and has served to block both liability and regulation. It’s too broad. IMO, I think it blocks the 10th amendment.

[lauraw4321]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

The constitution gives a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. It’s actually really clear about that, so if we’re focusing on making sure our current gun laws still match the constitution, we have a whole lot of work to do to regulate the militia. 
 

While I (and lots of people) agree with this interpretation, the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution means is SCOTUS, an they think it means an individual right. So, that is a serious issue with any regulation. It faces tough constitutional scrutiny. I think we need a movement to amend the constitution. 

[Heartstrings]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

h. What laws do you think would be acceptable to have tried to prevent her from having access to the guns that allowed her to do this?

A few things should have gotten her more scrutiny. 
 

she was under mental care for a personality disorder.   There is no mechanical for that to show up on a background check or garner more a scrutiny. 
 

she bought 7 guns from 5 stores in a relatively short time frame.  There is no mechanism for that to alert anyone that extra scrutiny should be applied. 

 

her parents, who she lived with, thought she was too unstable to have a gun.  She had them hidden.  There is no mechanism where they could have prevented her from buying more.  
 

 

Over all though, really there’s not much to do about adults buying legal weapons.  Making the weapons illegal would help, but as we’ve talked about here, she could still legally purchase an AR 15 privately if they were illegal at the store, although it would have slowed her a bit.  

[SKL]

I wonder if, when running a background check, they should send a notification to the adults residing in the same home as the purchaser, and give them an opportunity to object on specific grounds.  In addition, maybe a background check should include checking other adults (or people over, say, 16) living in the home, unless the gun will be stored in a documented location other than home (such as a firing range).

This might help address the issues of (a) parent knew kid shouldn't have guns but didn't know kid had guns, and (b) kid couldn't get guns but accessed parent's guns.

Also, there needs to be a regular syncing of arrest records and gun purchase/license records.  People who bought a gun in 2022 and beat their wife in 2023 need to turn in their gun.

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

The constitution gives a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia. It’s actually really clear about that, so if we’re focusing on making sure our current gun laws still match the constitution, we have a whole lot of work to do to regulate the militia. 
 

You’ve stated lots of things you don’t think we should be able to do to address this situation where guns are now the leading cause of death for children in this country. What things do you think we should do, or do you think all these dead children are just the price that needs to be paid so people can continue to have whatever guns they want with little to no regulation? In this latest shooting, for example, the shooter was able to buy guns from multiple stores. She was not a felon, there was nothing in the laws to prevent her from buying a bunch of guns to go shoot kids with. What laws do you think would be acceptable to have tried to prevent her from having access to the guns that allowed her to do this?

Obviously that clause isn't as clear as you believe considering it has been debated for decades and the Heller decision disagrees with you.  You can argue your position but for now you have to accept the current legal landscape which recognizes gun ownership as a right.

To be blunt, there is no law which could be reasonably passed which would prevent a non-felon from purchasing a firearm.

Could we pass an assault weapons ban?  A well-constructed one would likely pass judicial review, so sure.  

The same applies to high-capacity magazine bans.

Would those have prevented the Nashville tragedy? My guess is (sadly) probably not.  The weapons used would have changed but it is unlikely the act is prevented. 

Would licensing have prevented this?  Again, probably not, as I see no reason why this person couldn't have passed whatever training could reasonably be required.

If your solution is a mass ban/confiscation (which is how other nations have prevented mass shootings), then once again you are up against a right recognized by SCOTUS. Essentially you are facing the same issues pro-life groups encountered prior to the Dobbs decision.

 

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

PLCAA was only enacted in 2005 and has served to block both liability and regulation. It’s too broad. IMO, I think it blocks the 10th amendment.

It was enacted in 2005 because it was not needed prior. There was a concerted effort in the late90s/ early 2000s to file effectively (IMPO) frivolous lawsuits against gun manufactures for simply manufacturing...firearms.  The end game wasn't to win via decision but instead to bankrupt firearms manufacturers via the litigation fees.

It has been a long, long time but I can't recall any section of the PLCAA which blocks regulation.  I know it does not block all liability suits.

 

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Obviously that clause isn't as clear as you believe considering it has been debated for decades and the Heller decision disagrees with you.  You can argue your position but for now you have to accept the current legal landscape which recognizes gun ownership as a right.

To be blunt, there is no law which could be reasonably passed which would prevent a non-felon from purchasing a firearm.

Could we pass an assault weapons ban?  A well-constructed one would likely pass judicial review, so sure.  

The same applies to high-capacity magazine bans.

Would those have prevented the Nashville tragedy? My guess is (sadly) probably not.  The weapons used would have changed but it is unlikely the act is prevented. 

Would licensing have prevented this?  Again, probably not, as I see no reason why this person couldn't have passed whatever training could reasonably be required.

If your solution is a mass ban/confiscation (which is how other nations have prevented mass shootings), then once again you are up against a right recognized by SCOTUS. Essentially you are facing the same issues pro-life groups encountered prior to the Dobbs decision.

 

The pro-life people had to work for 50 years to get Dobbs to over turn Roe.  They had to start influencing law students, maneuver to get control of the right legislators, AND be very patient to wait to get control of the Supreme Court.  Common sense gun reform is going to require the same thing.  There is no law that would pass the current court that would end the current gun problem.   Of course, the problem is guns, but there is no magic wand that will fix that before our grandchildren hit school age.  
The state level is probably a better bet for getting legislation, but one states gun laws are only as good as it’s neighbors gun laws.  I work on flipping my state house but my NRA backed governor won 70/30 last year.  It’s going to take decades to fix that, there is no petition or email campaign that can fix that kind of divide.  
It’s not popular, because we just want to focus on how guns are the issue, AND THEY ARE, but there are systemic reasons we can’t just fix it and that complicates everything.  

[Goldcrest]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

A few things should have gotten her more scrutiny. 
 

she was under mental care for a personality disorder.   There is no mechanical for that to show up on a background check or garner more a scrutiny. 
 

Asking in good faith- do you think it is a sound principle to give federal authorities access to the health records, including mental health counseling of all citizens? It sounds as if she had never been institutionalized, therefore wouldn't you be opening up the records for all private counseling? Wouldn't this make private counselors responsible for deciding whether or not a person was stable enough to own a fire arm? 

Also curious what personality disorders people here would think of being exclusionary to own fire arms, were such a law enacted? If I am understanding correctly, certain mental diagnosis would be used as red flags in such a situation? Would that include gender dysphoria? Autism? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? I am unclear how this would work, or how it would not be extremely prejudicial against large groups of people. It seems that it would in fact end up with people being less likely to seek counseling or treatment? 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Goldcrest

[AnotherNewName]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

The pro-life people had to work for 50 years to get Dobbs to over turn Roe.  They had to start influencing law students, maneuver to get control of the right legislators, AND be very patient to wait to get control of the Supreme Court.  Common sense gun reform is going to require the same thing.  There is no law that would pass the current court that would end the current gun problem.   Of course, the problem is guns, but there is no magic wand that will fix that before our grandchildren hit school age.  
The state level is probably a better bet for getting legislation, but one states gun laws are only as good as it’s neighbors gun laws.  I work on flipping my state house but my NRA backed governor won 70/30 last year.  It’s going to take decades to fix that, there is no petition or email campaign that can fix that kind of divide.  
It’s not popular, because we just want to focus on how guns are the issue, AND THEY ARE, but there are systemic reasons we can’t just fix it and that complicates everything.  

The other issue is that isn't a gun violence problem with one set of solutions.  

You can break deaths from gun violence down into broad categories, all of which have different solutions.

1.) Accidental shootings - likely reduced most effectively by safe storage laws which are also actively enforced.  That will also require a cultural shift as the intrusive solutions of home inspections/proof of storage are logistically not feasible. 

2.) Suicides - probably reduced by a combination of laws.  Safe storage laws and waiting periods likely being the most effective.

3.) Criminal violence at the street level - this would require the most comprehensive sets of laws and enforcement.  The enforcement portion is key and unfortunately many large city DAs are refusing to prosecute criminal possession charges.  Adequately funding ATF investigations *and* prosecutions of straw purchases would also be a difference maker.

4.) Mass shooting events - probably the toughest nut to crack but also the smallest subset of these categories.  

[Heartstrings]

Just now, Goldcrest said:

Asking in good faith- do you think it is a sound principle to give federal authorities access to the health records, including mental health counseling of all citizens? It sounds as if she had never been institutionalized, therefore wouldn't you be opening up the records for all private counseling? Wouldn't this make private counselors responsible for deciding whether or not a person was stable enough to own a fire arm? 

Also curious what personality disorders people here would think of being exclusionary to own fire arms, were such a law enacted? If I am understanding correctly, certain metal diagnosis would be used as red flags in such a situation? Would that include gender dysphoria? Autism? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? I am unclear how this would work, or how it would not be extremely prejudicial against large groups of people. It seems that it would in fact end up with people being less likely to seek counseling or treatment? 

No.  I actually don’t like the idea that it’s just mental health.   Especially because mental health has been used against women and minorities for generations.  If a woman can be declared hysterical and be disarmed, that leaves us vulnerable, especially in a domestic violence situation. 
However, there were multiple people in this woman’s life who thought she was unstable.  The idea that there is literally nothing that could have been done to prevent her from buying firearms isn’t really an acceptable answer either.   

 Could a system be set up that allows red flags to be acted on prior to violence.  Sure.  Could it be abused. Yes.  Could we safeguard it to prevent that? Maybe, if it was well thought out and well funded, 2 things we don’t do for social programs in this country. 
 

There are no easy answers to this.  We want easy answers because babies are being slaughtered, here and only here. But we don’t have them. 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, AnotherNewName said:

The other issue is that isn't a gun violence problem with one set of solutions.  

You can break deaths from gun violence down into broad categories, all of which have different solutions.

1.) Accidental shootings - likely reduced most effectively by safe storage laws which are also actively enforced.  That will also require a cultural shift as the intrusive solutions of home inspections/proof of storage are logistically not feasible. 

2.) Suicides - probably reduced by a combination of laws.  Safe storage laws and waiting periods likely being the most effective.

3.) Criminal violence at the street level - this would require the most comprehensive sets of laws and enforcement.  The enforcement portion is key and unfortunately many large city DAs are refusing to prosecute criminal possession charges.  Adequately funding ATF investigations *and* prosecutions of straw purchases would also be a difference maker.

4.) Mass shooting events - probably the toughest nut to crack but also the smallest subset of these categories.  

100%.   And whenever people start talking about a possible solution to one category someone derails that discussion by saying it won’t help the other categories.  And the truth is sometimes fixing one category would negatively affect another.  

[lauraw4321]

Does anyone know of any organization working to repeal / amend the 2nd amendment?

[Dmmetler]

If we can keep people from buying more than one pack of Sudafed a month, we can keep people from buying 7 guns and a ton of ammo in a few day period. Yes, someone could still amass an arsenal, but it would likely reduce it. Excempt bullets used at hunting ranges and specific ammo used for hunting game (which DOES require a license rhar could be checked, even in TN where carrying a gun does not). 

 

I also agree with people that someone lives with being able to have veto power on gun purchases unless said purchases are stored at a gun range. That seems likely to reduce domestic violence in home, but would allow, say, an abused spouse to get training. 

[Goldcrest]

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

No.  I actually don’t like the idea that it’s just mental health.   Especially because mental health has been used against women and minorities for generations.  If a woman can be declared hysterical and be disarmed, that leaves us vulnerable, especially in a domestic violence situation. 
However, there were multiple people in this woman’s life who thought she was unstable.  The idea that there is literally nothing that could have been done to prevent her from buying firearms isn’t really an acceptable answer either.   

 Could a system be set up that allows red flags to be acted on prior to violence.  Sure.  Could it be abused. Yes.  Could we safeguard it to prevent that? Maybe, if it was well thought out and well funded, 2 things we don’t do for social programs in this country. 
 

There are no easy answers to this.  We want easy answers because babies are being slaughtered, here and only here. But we don’t have them. 

Predictive models by default end up discriminatory though in any scenario I can think of. Because they are proactive, not reactive, therefore there must be an element of profiling, or typecasting, whatever terminology you want to use. 

Would it not be more simple to strengthen your country's laws against already violent criminals. Domestic violence, criminal violence, repeat violent offenders? While that would not likely have stopped this individual from possessing a gun, isn't strict and harsh prosecution and high prison/jail sentences a better deterrent to the overall problem with gun violence? 

I have read many many US news stories that detail very violent criminals committing crimes with guns and then being released on bail, and also in many cases having the charges dropped, not because there were. not grounds, but as AnotherNewName outlined, because the state chose not to prosecute. 

[Amy in NH]

Just now, Dmmetler said:

If we can keep people from buying more than one pack of Sudafed a month, we can keep people from buying 7 guns and a ton of ammo in a few day period. Yes, someone could still amass an arsenal, but it would likely reduce it. Excempt bullets used at hunting ranges and specific ammo used for hunting game (which DOES require a license rhar could be checked, even in TN where carrying a gun does not). 

 

I also agree with people that someone lives with being able to have veto power on gun purchases unless said purchases are stored at a gun range. That seems likely to reduce domestic violence in home, but would allow, say, an abused spouse to get training. 

How about ALL firearms to be stored at an Armory, and only checked out after a brief mental health evaluation, with automatic disqualification for domestic violence and input from household members.

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Amy in NH said:

How about ALL firearms to be stored at an Armory, and only checked out after a brief mental health evaluation, with automatic disqualification for domestic violence and input from household members.

I might be ok with that, but the Supreme Court wouldn’t go for it.  

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, Goldcrest said:

? While that would not likely have stopped this individual from possessing a gun, isn't strict and harsh prosecution and high prison/jail sentences a better deterrent to the overall problem with gun violence? 

We already incarcerate more people, for longer times, than any other country.   Mostly it just turns out more hardened criminals.  Our recidivism rate is terrible.  The only benefit to long jail sentences is warehousing men passed the age of peak criminality.  That has consequences in broken communities and fatherless homes though,which leads to an increase in criminal behavior in the next generation and so forth. This also doesn’t take into account the desperation and hopelessness that leads to most gun crime.  If you see no future but death or poverty, what deterrent is jail? And mass murders usually intend to die, so jail isn’t a fear. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

48 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

To be blunt, there is no law which could be reasonably passed which would prevent a non-felon from purchasing a firearm.

Could we pass an assault weapons ban?  A well-constructed one would likely pass judicial review, so sure.  

The same applies to high-capacity magazine bans.

Would those have prevented the Nashville tragedy? My guess is (sadly) probably not.  The weapons used would have changed but it is unlikely the act is prevented. 

Would licensing have prevented this?  Again, probably not, as I see no reason why this person couldn't have passed whatever training could reasonably be required.

If your solution is a mass ban/confiscation (which is how other nations have prevented mass shootings), then once again you are up against a right recognized by SCOTUS. Essentially you are facing the same issues pro-life groups encountered prior to the Dobbs decision.

 

Okay, so it sounds like you are saying, no, there is nothing the US can do to stop our insane rate of gun deaths and that guns being the leading cause of death for our kids is indeed a price we have to pay. The thing is, all it would take is the will of the people to say we will not vote for one more politician who does not commit to changing the 2nd amendment so that we don’t have this massive gun problem anymore. It’s not that that can’t be done, but that so many people wouldn’t be willing to, because they love their guns too much. 

8 minutes ago, Goldcrest said:

Would it not be more simple to strengthen your country's laws against already violent criminals. Domestic violence, criminal violence, repeat violent offenders? While that would not likely have stopped this individual from possessing a gun, isn't strict and harsh prosecution and high prison/jail sentences a better deterrent to the overall problem with gun violence? 

I don’t think that would do much. It would do nothing for gun suicide or school shootings for sure. 

[AnotherNewName]

19 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

If we can keep people from buying more than one pack of Sudafed a month, we can keep people from buying 7 guns and a ton of ammo in a few day period. Yes, someone could still amass an arsenal, but it would likely reduce it. Excempt bullets used at hunting ranges and specific ammo used for hunting game (which DOES require a license rhar could be checked, even in TN where carrying a gun does not). 

 

I also agree with people that someone lives with being able to have veto power on gun purchases unless said purchases are stored at a gun range. That seems likely to reduce domestic violence in home, but would allow, say, an abused spouse to get training. 

Not true in many states if you are hunting on your own land.

How many bullets are too many?  How will you verify if someone is using them or stockpiling?

Given the Heller decision, good luck on giving others the veto power over someone else buying a firearm (excluding valid red flag laws).

[Dmmetler]

24 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

How about ALL firearms to be stored at an Armory, and only checked out after a brief mental health evaluation, with automatic disqualification for domestic violence and input from household members.

I'd accept that, and gladly- but I think that in my state, just putting purchase limits would be a tough sell. 

[AnotherNewName]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

Okay, so it sounds like you are saying, no, there is nothing the US can do to stop our insane rate of gun deaths and that guns being the leading cause of death for our kids is indeed a price we have to pay. The thing is, all it would take is the will of the people to say we will not vote for one more politician who does not commit to changing the 2nd amendment so that we don’t have this massive gun problem anymore. It’s not that that can’t be done, but that so many people wouldn’t be willing to, because they love their guns too much. 

I don’t think that would do much. It would do nothing for gun suicide or school shootings for sure. 

I gave my answer based on the current interpretation of the law.  I believe I used the word "reasonable" but I could have also said realistic.  Sure, if you could get enough on board to repeal the 2nd Amendment the Heller decision is moot and the sky is the limit.  Do you think that is realistic?  If you think you can get mass gun bans/confiscations passed then I wish you success, but I don't see it happening and tbh I think the outcome would be ugly.

Or we can talk about reforms which can pass.

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

It’s not that that can’t be done, but that so many people wouldn’t be willing to, because they love their guns too much

It’s not just or only that they love their guns too much, most gun owners support some sort of legislation with some sort of restrictions.  Many of us have said so in this thread.  It’s also an issue of voters having more than one interest and an issue of the will of the voters against the will of corporations and lobbying groups, plus a sprinkling of gerrymandering to insulate the legislators against the will of the people.

  
Today gun rights is important because this just happened.  Elections aren’t until next year.   All sorts of issues will be brought up and used to distract voters from the gun issue.

[AnotherNewName]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

I don’t think that would do much. It would do nothing for gun suicide or school shootings for sure. 

43% of all gun deaths are murders.  Why wouldn't we pass laws to address those deaths?

[Heartstrings]

12 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Or we can talk about reforms which can pass.

Honestly in states like mine, there aren’t reforms that can pass.  They are actively trying to loosen the gun laws, right this minute.  I don’t like it, but the only options for safety in my state are trying to figure out how to harden targets.  I HATE this.  But it’s 100% easier and more likely to get a few more armed guards at the schools or grocery store than to get any gun restriction legislation passed.  We’ve had one party control for almost 20 years and will for the foreseeable future, as do neighboring states.  I’d love if someone had a way to change that in the next election, but I’m not holding my breath.   We ran great candidates, who worked hard, we raised money and campaigned with all our hearts and lost 70/30.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

Or we can talk about reforms which can pass.

Well, this thread has talked about a number of those—they exist in many states, but other states are in an arms race the opposite direction. 
 

 

9 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

I gave my answer based on the current interpretation of the law.  I believe I used the word "reasonable" but I could have also said realistic.  Sure, if you could get enough on board to repeal the 2nd Amendment the Heller decision is moot and the sky is the limit.  Do you think that is realistic?

I’m asking you personally if you would support it, or if you think all these dead kids are just the price we all need to pay so that people can have guns with little regulation. You sound representative of the mindset that is against reform, so it’s useful to know your thinking on that. 
 

 

17 minutes ago, AnotherNewName said:

43% of all gun deaths are murders.  Why wouldn't we pass laws to address those deaths?

Isn’t that what most of what we’re talking about is? I was responding to someone who suggested that instead of any gun reform, we should just increase sentencing, which given what we already have and see, doesn’t appear likely to do much to reduce homicides, and nothing at all for suicides or mass shootings. I mean, I don’t see any reason any one who purposely kills another person (other than in clearly warranted self defense) should ever be out of prison, but I don’t think that really has much to do with this particular discussion.

[Heartstrings]

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

asking you personally if you would support it, or if you think all these dead kids are just the price we all need to pay so that people can have guns with little regulation. You sound representative of the mindset that is against reform, so it’s useful to know your thinking on that. 

This is an example of “eating your own”. You are attacking someone who is on your side because they don’t meet some purity test.   This doesn’t persuade anyone and it makes our side look extreme.   Stuff like this brings movements down. 

[AnotherNewName]

19 minutes ago, KSera said:

Well, this thread has talked about a number of those—they exist in many states, but other states are in an arms race the opposite direction. 
 

 

I’m asking you personally if you would support it, or if you think all these dead kids are just the price we all need to pay so that people can have guns with little regulation. You sound representative of the mindset that is against reform, so it’s useful to know your thinking on that. 
 

 

Isn’t that what most of what we’re talking about is? I was responding to someone who suggested that instead of any gun reform, we should just increase sentencing, which given what we already have and see, doesn’t appear likely to do much to reduce homicides, and nothing at all for suicides or mass shootings. I mean, I don’t see any reason any one who purposely kills another person (other than in clearly warranted self defense) should ever be out of prison, but I don’t think that really has much to do with this particular discussion.

If you are asking me if I support a mass ban/confiscation, the answer is no.

I do support:

1.) universal background checks.

2.) red flag laws (as long as due process is followed.)

3.) I am open to large capacity magazine bans.

4.) I would support a narrow assault weapon ban.

5.) I support concealed carry laws which require training and a license.  I do not support open carry.

But as I said, barring a mass ban/confiscation, I don't see any law which would not infringe upon private ownership to an unacceptable degree and would completely eliminate the risk of a mass shooter.

 

 

[AnotherNewName]

Also, for those claiming the 7 firearms were purchased in a short time frame, the current reports differ.

"The seven firearms were purchased between October 20, 2020, and June 6, 2022, police spokesman Don Aaron said."

Here’s what we know about the guns used in the Nashville school shooting (msn.com)

Edited March 30, 2023 by AnotherNewName

[SKL]

49 minutes ago, KSera said:

Okay, so it sounds like you are saying, no, there is nothing the US can do to stop our insane rate of gun deaths and that guns being the leading cause of death for our kids is indeed a price we have to pay. The thing is, all it would take is the will of the people to say we will not vote for one more politician who does not commit to changing the 2nd amendment so that we don’t have this massive gun problem anymore. It’s not that that can’t be done, but that so many people wouldn’t be willing to, because they love their guns too much.

Many countries that don't have the 2nd Amendment have violent crime.  Amending the Constitution isn't going to stop violent people from being violent.

Not to pick on one country, but for simplicity's sake, let's look at our neighbor Mexico compared to the US.  (Mexico has a very modified constitutional "right" to own a gun - effectively almost nobody has been able to legally buy one in our lifetime.)

Mexico:  murder rate 17, guns per capita 0.15.

US:  murder rate 4, guns per capita 1.13.

The contrast is similar in different areas of the US, with the (typically more regulated) urban areas having a much higher gun murder rate than the national average.

So aside from the fact that amending the Constitution or the Court's interpretation thereof will take forever, it won't magically fix our problems.  If people think an amendment is both appropriate and possible, then fine, push for it; but IMO the greater focus should be on things that can have an impact today / this year / this decade.

[prairiewindmomma]

For those who aren’t familiar with Heller: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/14/1113705501/second-amendment-supreme-court-dick-heller-gun-rights

For the first 200+ years of our country’s history, the right to bear arms was thought of as a collective right, rather than an individual right. Scalia and other justices in 2008 discarded all of that history and reinterpreted the second amendment to mean that an individual right to bear arms was conferred. 
 

(Alito and Roberts both came to the court in 2005, swinging the court to a much more conservatively minded court, but activist in its own way by reinterpreting history and setting aside judicial precedent in many instances.)

[prairiewindmomma]

Ironically, a lot of guns used in Mexico are purchased in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling_of_firearms_into_Mexico