New gun violence thread

[mommyoffive]

Tennessee Governor reveals Nashville school shooting victim Cindy Peak was his wife's best friend (msn.com)

Oh wow.  I hope this spurs the Governor to pass some gun laws in his state to protect people.

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Tennessee Governor reveals Nashville school shooting victim Cindy Peak was his wife's best friend (msn.com)

Oh wow.  I hope this spurs the Governor to pass some gun laws in his state to protect people.

Those with an interest might want to look at Gov. Bill Lee's record on guns (and "gays").

Not promising (to engage in some supreme understatement).

Bill

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Spy Car

[Lady Florida.]

31 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Same. But I refuse to be helpless and hopeless. 

 

I also refuse. Writing to my reps is pointless but I vote and I work hard for certain candidates. I talk to people about exercising their right to vote. I know people who are moving out of state for reasons other than the topic of this thread. I don't blame them for doing what is necessary to protect their children but this is my home. My people are here. I prefer to stay and try to change things. My state is an international disgrace right now but it doesn't have to remain so.

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

I also refuse. Writing to my reps is pointless but I vote and I work hard for certain candidates. I talk to people about exercising their right to vote. I know people who are moving out of state for reasons other than the topic of this thread. I don't blame them for doing what is necessary to protect their children but this is my home. My people are here. I prefer to stay and try to change things. My state is an international disgrace right now but it doesn't have to remain so.

I do try to remember that not that long ago my state was relatively sensible.  Not great by any standard but not the bottom of the barrel.  That means we could get there again.  

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

As I’ve said, we own guns as have generations of my family.  All legally owned and my state doesn’t make it easy, but I think it’s reasonable. We also have what I believe are reasonable red flag laws.

Then yesterday the city I work in announced that they’d raided a home and confiscated a significant number of “ghost guns.” Apparently this enterprising chap bought a 3D printer and has been steadily creating a supply of self made unregistered untraceable weapons.  I had no idea that was possible(and yes, I know it’s not legal, but that’s not much of a deterrent for an illegal gun seller or someone who doesn’t care if they live or die).   At this point, I feel if technology makes  this possible, we should also be investing in technology to make what we can safer.

But if anyone can go make their own weapon(and my husband tells me that it is also possible to make one’s own ammunition if one is desperate enough), I am not really sure that any legislation is going to be very helpful. Even if it’s only making handguns now, I am sure it will progress to being able to 3D print all forms of weapon parts that can be assembled to form other weapons.

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Mrs Tiggywinkle Again

[Faith-manor]

3 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

I watched both Uvalde and this shootings footage.  I was so bothered by watching the footage from Uvalde.  I can't even put it into words.  I don't know how anyone could stand there and not do anything, no matter the orders.  It still makes me ill to think about it.

 

Right. Even in the military, personnel can violate an order on moral grounds, and have a means to defend themselves with representation for doing it. As far as I am concerned, those officers have NO out on this and should go to prison.

I have a theory about Uvalde vs. Nashville. Hint. One of these two elementary schools has a 90% minority enrollment.

[maize]

13 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

 

I have a theory about Uvalde vs. Nashville. Hint. One of these two elementary schools has a 90% minority enrollment.

Many of the law enforcement people in Uvalde were also minorities.

[fairfarmhand]

19 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. Even in the military, personnel can violate an order on moral grounds, and have a means to defend themselves with representation for doing it. As far as I am concerned, those officers have NO out on this and should go to prison.

I have a theory about Uvalde vs. Nashville. Hint. One of these two elementary schools has a 90% minority enrollment.

More likely it’s funding and training. Small town vs large metro area. 
 

small towns can’t attract the best officers because they can’t compete pay wise then they can’t train to “upgrade” their people.

[Corraleno]

31 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

More likely it’s funding and training. Small town vs large metro area. 
 

small towns can’t attract the best officers because they can’t compete pay wise then they can’t train to “upgrade” their people.

A total of 376 law enforcement officers from a wide area, not just Uvalde, were present, including a team that had just undergone a full 8 hour day of active shooter training just 2 months before the incident. 

[TheReader]

3 hours ago, fairfarmhand said:

I don't think anything will change until GUN OWNERS advocate for common sense restrictions. 

I don't understand the resistance. WE ALREADY REGULATE GUNS! We regulate driver's licenses. We regulate who can buy freaking cold meds. 

We're gun owners. We have several. I'm not afraid of common sense restrictions. We need red flag laws. We need strict control over who can buy a weapon and the processes for buying weapons.. We need waiting periods. We need magazine restrictions. There are so many things that could improve this situation that 95% of gun owners would not be affected by.

I have been encouraged, because I've been talking about this on FB, and it sparked a varied, length conversation with several of my relatives -- one of whom made me cringe inside when I saw their name listed as "replied to...." because they own enough weapons to arm a small town or so. 

This same relative posted calling for better enforcement of the laws we have. For not allowing felons to have guns. For limiting clip/magazine sizes. For red flag laws. For all the sensible restrictions that many of the rest of us have been saying for a long time. 

A year ago, our whole family thought this relative was more or less just plain nuts, particularly on this issue. We kept talking about it anyway. 

Speaking up isn't futile, after all. Keep talking. Keep voting. Keep discussing the issue.  People, even ones you think surely aren't, really are listening. 

54 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. Even in the military, personnel can violate an order on moral grounds, and have a means to defend themselves with representation for doing it. As far as I am concerned, those officers have NO out on this and should go to prison.

I have a theory about Uvalde vs. Nashville. Hint. One of these two elementary schools has a 90% minority enrollment.

This is patently unfair, and as others have already said, the entire *community* of Uvalde is primarily minority. Training, funding, etc. absolutely played a part, but casting it about race is uncalled for. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, TheReader said:

I have been encouraged, because I've been talking about this on FB, and it sparked a varied, length conversation with several of my relatives -- one of whom made me cringe inside when I saw their name listed as "replied to...." because they own enough weapons to arm a small town or so. 

This same relative posted calling for better enforcement of the laws we have. For not allowing felons to have guns. For limiting clip/magazine sizes. For red flag laws. For all the sensible restrictions that many of the rest of us have been saying for a long time.

The guys who taught my girls and me in our shooting class was for sensible regulations.

My dad, a life member of the NRA, and our whole family, are for sensible regulations.  My dad is actually very well-spoken on this.  Nobody needs a mass killing machine for sport or hobby.

Someone mentioned earlier that the majority of Americans are in favor of sensible gun regulations.  I don't know why we let the fringe rule (left or right) rule on so many issues.

Conversation can be helpful if only to make it clear that reasonable ideas are totally mainstream.

What isn't helpful is when either side injects the tired stereotypes about "half of America is selfish, immoral, ______."  There's tons of common ground if we are honest.

Edited March 29, 2023 by SKL

[Frances]

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

Someone mentioned earlier that the majority of Americans are in favor of sensible gun regulations.  I don't know why we let the fringe rule (left or right) rule on so many issues.

The fringe rules us on so many issues due to gerrymandering, the electoral college, the structure of the senate, the rules for many primaries, and the lack of rank choice voting in most places. The most extreme candidates are usually the ones that make it out of the primaries because they rile up their base using fear and anger.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Frances

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't know why we let the fringe rule (left or right) rule on so many issues.

Because people keep voting for those people. In this case, people who have been bought by the gun lobby. What the gun lobby wants doesn’t match what most regular citizens want, but those regular citizens vote for the people who then make and block laws according to the gun lobby’s bidding. 

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle Again said:

As I’ve said, we own guns as have generations of my family.  All legally owned and my state doesn’t make it easy, but I think it’s reasonable. We also have what I believe are reasonable red flag laws.

Then yesterday the city I work in announced that they’d raided a home and confiscated a significant number of “ghost guns.” Apparently this enterprising chap bought a 3D printer and has been steadily creating a supply of self made unregistered untraceable weapons.  I had no idea that was possible(and yes, I know it’s not legal, but that’s not much of a deterrent for an illegal gun seller or someone who doesn’t care if they live or die).   At this point, I feel if technology makes  this possible, we should also be investing in technology to make what we can safer.

But if anyone can go make their own weapon(and my husband tells me that it is also possible to make one’s own ammunition if one is desperate enough), I am not really sure that any legislation is going to be very helpful. Even if it’s only making handguns now, I am sure it will progress to being able to 3D print all forms of weapon parts that can be assembled to form other weapons.

 

If it’s helpful, the 3D printed guns can usually only get off a shot or two and aren’t very accurate.  They are also prone to injuring the shooter.  The plastic is just not strong enough to withstand the mini explosion required to shoot a bullet.   
Similar with ammo.  A lot of people make their own ammo but a novice is likely to get hurt trying without expert guidance.  

[HomeAgain]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

The guys who taught my girls and me in our shooting class was for sensible regulations.

My dad, a life member of the NRA, and our whole family, are for sensible regulations.  My dad is actually very well-spoken on this.  Nobody needs a mass killing machine for sport or hobby.

Someone mentioned earlier that the majority of Americans are in favor of sensible gun regulations.  I don't know why we let the fringe rule (left or right) rule on so many issues.

 

The NRA is not for sensible regulations.  They actively lobby against them and promote looser gun regulations.  Giving money to the NRA or supporting them is supporting these "fringe" people.  That's why. 

From the NRA website:

Quote

Urge your lawmakers to oppose any and all gun control proposals that have been, or will be, introduced. Enter your information to be matched with your U.S. Representative and Senators.

https://explore.nra.org/interests/politics-and-legislation/

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Right…damage is correlated more with velocity through the barrel than with caliber size. 3D printed guns are generally less effective than build your own kit guns.

Built your own kit guns are a category of ghost guns, but they are regulatable. I personally think they should be banned and that parts, for repairs, etc. should be required go through ATF regulated/licensed gunsmiths.

We could also change liability rules and make gun manufacturer’s open for liability claims. As it stands, they are largely protected from lawsuits. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[SKL]

35 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

The NRA is not for sensible regulations.  They actively lobby against them and promote looser gun regulations.  Giving money to the NRA or supporting them is supporting these "fringe" people.  That's why. 

From the NRA website:

https://explore.nra.org/interests/politics-and-legislation/

 

Yeah I didn't say my dad sends them money.  My mom bought him a life membership when they were newlyweds.  They've been married for 62 years.  The NRA wasn't always for mass killing machines.  And I don't think it should be assumed that all NRA members are for mass killing machines.

[HomeAgain]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I didn't say my dad sends them money.  My mom bought him a life membership when they were newlyweds.  They've been married for 62 years.  The NRA wasn't always for mass killing machines.  And I don't think it should be assumed that all NRA members are for mass killing machines.

The NRA spent the second half of the 20th century dismantling gun laws.  It lobbied Congress in the early 90s in order to restrict the CDC from doing research on gun violence.

If you support the NRA, you support no regulation on guns because that's what they do.  It's a statement of fact.  Perhaps your family should rethink their alignment with this organization if they don't want to be seen as the fringe that the organization is.  People can give up their memberships, even if they realize 62 years later that they were wrong about them from the beginning.

[SeaConquest]

It is likely to get worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/opinion/guns-supreme-court.html

 

OPINION

GUEST ESSAY

We’re About to Find Out How Far the Supreme Court Will Go to Arm America

March 29, 2023

 

By Linda Greenhouse

Ms. Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008 and was a contributing Opinion writer from 2009 to 2021.

How much further will the Supreme Court go to assist in the arming of America? That has been the question since last June, when the court ruled that New York’s century-old gun licensing law violated the Second Amendment. Sooner than expected, we are likely to find out the answer.

On March 17, the Biden administration asked the justices to overturn an appeals court decision that can charitably be described as nuts, and accurately as pernicious. The decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal law that for almost 30 years has prohibited gun ownership by people who are subject to restraining orders for domestic violence.

The Fifth Circuit upheld the identical law less than three years ago. But that was before President Donald Trump put a Mississippi state court judge named Cory Wilson on the appeals court. (As a candidate for political office in 2015, Wilson said in a National Rifle Association questionnaire that he opposed both background checks on private gun sales and state licensing requirements for potential gun owners.)

Judge Wilson wrote in a decision handed down in March that the appeals court was forced to repudiate its own precedent by the logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York licensing case. He was joined by another Trump judge, James Ho, and by Edith Jones, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan; Judge Jones has long been one of the most aggressive conservatives on the country’s most conservative appeals court.

Now it is up to the justices to say whether that analysis is correct.

Fifteen years after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision interpreted the Second Amendment to convey an individual right to own a gun, there is no overstating the significance of the choice the court has been asked to make. Heller was limited in scope: It gave Americans a constitutional right to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The court’s decision last June in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was on the surface also quite limited, striking down a law that required a showing of special need in order to obtain an unrestricted license to carry a concealed gun outside the home. New York was one of only a half-dozen states with such a requirement, as the court put it in the Bruen decision.

What was not limited about the New York decision — indeed, what was radical — was the analysis that Justice Clarence Thomas employed in his opinion for the 6-3 majority. Following Heller, courts had evaluated gun restrictions by weighing the personal Second Amendment claim against the government’s interest in the particular regulation, a type of balancing test that has long been common in constitutional adjudication. The Bruen decision rejected that approach, instead placing history above all else.

“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,” Justice Thomas wrote.

As a result of that decision, Shawn Hubler, a national correspondent for The Times, reported earlier this month, “gun historians across the country are in demand like never before as lawyers must now comb through statutes drafted in the Colonial era and the early years of the Republic to litigate modern firearms restrictions.”

She noted that “cases now explore weapons bans in early saloons, novelty air rifles on the Lewis and Clark expedition, concealed carry restrictions on bowie knives and 18th-century daggers known as ‘Arkansas toothpicks,’ and a string-operated ‘trap gun’ that may or may not be comparable to an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.”

Judge Wilson, in his opinion for the Fifth Circuit, said the prohibition on gun ownership by a person under a court-ordered restraining order for domestic violence failed “the historical tradition” test crafted by Justice Thomas. While there were laws at the time of the country’s founding that disarmed people who were deemed “disloyal” or “unacceptable,” Judge Wilson asserted that the purpose of those laws was to safeguard the “political and social order” rather than to protect individuals from violence. Consequently, he said, the old laws were not sufficiently “relevantly similar” to the modern law, known as Section 922(g)(8) of the U.S. code, to meet the Supreme Court’s history test.

The defendant in this case, Zackey Rahimi, was under a restraining order after he allegedly assaulted and threatened to shoot his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his child, when he went on a shooting spree, firing a weapon on five different occasions around Arlington, Texas. He pleaded guilty to violating Section 922(g)(8) while at the same time challenging the law’s constitutionality.

Mr. Rahimi, “while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees,” Judge Wilson wrote. Noting that a court-ordered restraining order is civil rather than criminal in nature, Judge Wilson asked rhetorically whether, if Mr. Rahimi’s civil offense was enough to disqualify him from owning a gun, as the law required, a similar disqualification might apply to those who violate a speed limit or fail to recycle.

Clearly, the question now for the Supreme Court is not only the validity of one statute but how the Bruen decision’s newly minted “historical tradition” requirement will apply to any and all gun regulations. The Fifth Circuit offered a lazy and cherry-picked history that “missed the forest for the trees,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government’s Supreme Court petition.

While it was clear that “dangerous individuals could be disarmed” at the time of the Constitution’s framing, she wrote, the Fifth Circuit treated “even minor and immaterial distinctions between historical laws and their modern counterparts as a sufficient reason to find modern laws unconstitutional.” Under such an analysis, she argued, “few modern statutes would survive judicial review.” (While the Supreme Court is not obliged to hear the government’s appeal, United States v. Rahimi, the court almost never declines to review a decision that has invalidated a federal statute.)

In a forthcoming article, Professors Joseph Blocher of Duke Law School and Reva B. Siegel of Yale point out that there is a reason for the failure of early American lawmakers to consider domestic violence a reason to take away an abuser’s gun: The very concept of domestic violence was alien to the Constitution’s framers because wives were completely subordinate to their husbands and wife beating was widely tolerated.

In enacting Section 922(g)(8) in 1994, they write, “Congress acted to alter the government’s historical refusal to intervene in intimate partner violence — a failure that was rooted in the belief that a man had authority to ‘correct’ subordinate members of the household, including his wife.” They note that “government response to violence between intimates only began to shift in the 1970s as this system of gender hierarchy began slowly to break down.” Protecting women from intimate partner violence is thus inherent in, and not — as the Fifth Circuit assumed — different from protecting the “political and social order.”

There is no doubt that under the old interest-balancing test, the government would prevail. The interest in keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers is that obvious, as even the Fifth Circuit found in 2020. “The parties agree,” the court noted then, “that reducing domestic gun abuse is not just an important government interest, but a compelling one. They only dispute whether §922(g)(8) is reasonably adapted to that interest. We hold that it is.”

The government’s petition points out that there are more than one million acts of domestic violence in the United States every year “and the presence of a gun in a house with a domestic abuser increases the risk of homicide sixfold.”

Will a fact like that matter to the Supreme Court? Do facts still matter at all? That may now be the most urgent question this case presents, not only to the court but to the country.

 

[Spy Car]

When I mentioned members of Congress posing with their families in front of their Christmas trees brandishing automatic weapons earlier, I was unaware that that included the US Representative who currently represents the district where the Nashville shooting took place.

Jesus wept.

Bill

[Corraleno]

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

When I mentioned members of Congress posing with their families in front of their Christmas trees brandishing automatic weapons earlier, I was unaware that that included the US Representative who currently represents the district where the Nashville shooting took place.

Jesus wept.

Bill

Not only that, but the photo was accompanied by this quote: “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

[WildflowerMom]

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

When I mentioned members of Congress posing with their families in front of their Christmas trees brandishing automatic weapons earlier, I was unaware that that included the US Representative who currently represents the district where the Nashville shooting took place.

Jesus wept.

Bill

Yes, he did and is.    As a Christian, the gun culture just sickens me.   

[Melissa in Australia]

1 minute ago, WildflowerMom said:

Yes, he did and is.    As a Christian, the gun culture just sickens me.   

As a human that gun culture sickens most everyone. 

[WildflowerMom]

1 minute ago, Melissa in Australia said:

As a human that gun culture sickens most everyone. 

True.  But here (not sure about y'all), there's a huge amount of Christians who are touting gun ownership, gun pride, arming yourself, etc.  it's sickening to me as a human, but especially that these people claim to be christians.   

[Melissa in Australia]

Just now, WildflowerMom said:

True.  But here (not sure about y'all), there's a huge amount of Christians who are touting gun ownership, gun pride, arming yourself, etc.  it's sickening to me as a human, but especially that these people claim to be christians.   

It is all part of the  complex problem.  Viewing  themselves as some sort of superior being with  special devine rights instead of being human. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

The NRA spent the second half of the 20th century dismantling gun laws.  It lobbied Congress in the early 90s in order to restrict the CDC from doing research on gun violence.

If you support the NRA, you support no regulation on guns because that's what they do.  It's a statement of fact.  Perhaps your family should rethink their alignment with this organization if they don't want to be seen as the fringe that the organization is.  People can give up their memberships, even if they realize 62 years later that they were wrong about them from the beginning.

This is not accurate.  When my folks joined the NRA, the NRA had supported / was supporting the gun control acts of those days.  It was also non partisan.  That started to change in the 1970s.

My folks were poor and my mom knew my dad, a sportsman, liked the American Rifleman magazine.  There was a special deal to lock in a lifetime subscription of that magazine.

I am about 110% sure my dad would not send $.01 to the NRA to support its current policies.  But yeah, he's a member, and I don't know how many others are in that category.

Anyhoo, I wasn't supporting NRA policies, I was pointing out that even someone who grew up with guns, has guns, enjoys guns, whose #1 lifetime hobby was guns, does not believe in mass killing machines, and never has.  And I don't think he's an exception.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, SeaConquest said:

 

It is likely to get worse.

 

Unfortunately the fight to get more sensible gun regulations is going to be a decades long battle, and will need to include flipping state houses and the Supreme Court.   Victory is in no way guaranteed and honestly is a long shot.    

Edited March 29, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Pawz4me]

45 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

True.  But here (not sure about y'all), there's a huge amount of Christians who are touting gun ownership, gun pride, arming yourself, etc.  it's sickening to me as a human, but especially that these people claim to be christians.   

Agreed. DH and I were discussing this over dinner. Neither of us claims to be Christian any more, but . . yes. It boggles the mind that people can claim a strong Christian identity at the same time they idolize weapons. I'll repeat . . . Jesus wept.

[SKL]

As far as whether guns are a deterrent ... in the context of this school shooting ... clearly the perp was not going to get out alive, and knew it going in.  IMO perps like that are suicidal going in, which needs to be understood when strategizing to prevent these deaths.

However, with the vast majority of gun violence, the perp isn't planning to die.  The deterrent effect of knowing potential victims might have guns would have an impact there.

We can't know the number of bullets that don't get fired because of this kind of deterrent.

[Heartstrings]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

As far as whether guns are a deterrent ... in the context of this school shooting ... clearly the perp was not going to get out alive, and knew it going in.  IMO perps like that are suicidal going in, which needs to be understood when strategizing to prevent these deaths.

However, with the vast majority of gun violence, the perp isn't planning to die.  The deterrent effect of knowing potential victims might have guns would have an impact there.

We can't know the number of bullets that don't get fired because of this kind of deterrent.

I’m seeing reporting that says the shooter chose this school over another school because the other school had a guard.  I’m not saying I LIKE it, but a guard seems to have been a deterrent here.  

 

https://www.newsweek.com/covenant-school-shooter-audrey-hale-eyed-second-target-police-say-1790702?amp=1

Drake told reporters that "there was another location that was mentioned, but because of threat assessment by the suspect, too much security, they decided not to."

Edited March 29, 2023 by Heartstrings

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

I’m seeing reporting that says the shooter chose this school over another school because the other school had a guard.  I’m not saying I LIKE it, but a guard seems to have been a deterrent here.  

A guard would have prevented her going out the way she wanted to.

Sorry, I feel like talking this way trivializes the horrible situation, and I don't mean to do that.  It's just that the psychology behind public mass murders generally includes suicidality.  Our approach to trying to prevent these incidents needs to recognize that IMO.

[lewelma]

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

 

5 hours ago, SKL said:

I was pointing out that even someone who grew up with guns, has guns, enjoys guns, whose #1 lifetime hobby was guns, does not believe in mass killing machines, and never has.  And I don't think he's an exception.

 

deleted

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by lewelma

[whitestavern]

51 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I’m seeing reporting that says the shooter chose this school over another school because the other school had a guard.  I’m not saying I LIKE it, but a guard seems to have been a deterrent here.  

 

https://www.newsweek.com/covenant-school-shooter-audrey-hale-eyed-second-target-police-say-1790702?amp=1

Drake told reporters that "there was another location that was mentioned, but because of threat assessment by the suspect, too much security, they decided not to."

I heard it was a mall not another school. But yes, it had too much security. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by whitestavern

[lewelma]

deleted

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by lewelma

[bookbard]

8 minutes ago, lewelma said:

So 92 year old female and 11 guns in her house that she has never shot.

 

Can you just give the guns (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'one') to the police to destroy? It seems ridiculous that you can amass guns and just pass them down through generations. Don't they have to be registered to a specific person?

[lewelma]

4 hours ago, bookbard said:

Can you just give the guns (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'one') to the police to destroy? It seems ridiculous that you can amass guns and just pass them down through generations. Don't they have to be registered to a specific person?

deleted

Edited March 30, 2023 by lewelma

[Heartstrings]

9 minutes ago, bookbard said:

Can you just give the guns (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'one') to the police to destroy? It seems ridiculous that you can amass guns and just pass them down through generations. Don't they have to be registered to a specific person?

Not in most states, I think only in a few cities.  There is no one in my state to register guns with.  People can be licensed to conceal carry, but the guns themselves are just free floating little things.  Once sold by the gun store, no one knows, or cares what happens to them! You can give them out like Oprah, “you get a gun, you get a gun!”.   No need for background checks when privately sold or gifted.  
 

If more people knew what the real gun laws were, maybe we could get some traction. I think the idea that guns are registered and licensed comes from media, because most media is created in LA and NYC where the laws are stricter.  It’s just not the case in most places outside of those big cities.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Corraleno]

45 minutes ago, bookbard said:

It seems ridiculous that you can amass guns and just pass them down through generations. Don't they have to be registered to a specific person?

In some states you can just walk into a gun shop (or even a WalMart) and walk out with any gun(s) and ammo you want. No waiting, no registration, no license, no training required. And in some states you can openly carry that unregistered, unlicensed gun anywhere you want for any reason.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Corraleno
remove incorrect info

[Kanin]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:50 AM, TheReader said:

Big, big, big hugs to you. 

Thank you ❤️ 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

In some states you can just walk into a gun shop (or even a WalMart) and walk out with any gun(s) and ammo you want. No waiting, no background check, no registration, no training required. And in some states you can carry that unregistered, unlicensed gun anywhere you want for any reason.

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.   

[Vintage81]

21 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

In some states you can just walk into a gun shop (or even a WalMart) and walk out with any gun(s) and ammo you want. No waiting, no background check, no registration, no training required. And in some states you can carry that unregistered, unlicensed gun anywhere you want for any reason.

Most stores are considered gun dealers and are required to do federal background checks, including Walmart. They have even increased their restrictions on gun sales…

https://corporate.walmart.com/askwalmart/what-is-walmart-doing-to-guarantee-responsible-firearm-sales

There are differences when it comes to gun shows and private sales. I do think the “loophole” is an issue and those sales should go thru background checks as well.

ETA…regarding registration, looks like only a handful of states require some form of registration, and it’s not necessarily for all firearms. Here’s more info if anyone is interested…

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/

Edited March 30, 2023 by Vintage81

[livetoread]

I think all guns should be registered to one person and that person should be legally responsible for anything that happens with that gun. If you sell it, you'd better make sure and register that sale because you are responsible otherwise. If someone somehow gets ahold of your gun and anything bad happens while they have it, you are an accomplice. Your kid accidentally shoots another kid because they got your gun, you are going to prison. And then there should be civil penalties on top of it like you can be sued from here to kingdom come because you didn't make sure your gun was secure. 

This would be on top of banning assault rifles, background checks for all sales including private, limiting ammo clips, red flag laws, and a waiting period to buy.

ETA and if someone uses your gun to commit suicide you are also legally responsible both criminally and civilly. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by livetoread

[Heartstrings]

56 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

 

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/owner-responsibilities/registration/

That’s a great link.  A few things I pulled.  


further proof that the population is in agreement, and our leaders are thwarting the will of the people…..A nationwide survey conducted in August 2019 found that 62% of respondents favor laws requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry

****poll conducted in May 2001 found that 70% of respondents mistakenly believe that a registration system already exists in the United States.^4*******

 

States that Require of Facilitate Registration Records for All Firearms

• California*
• District of Columbia¹²
• Hawaii¹³
• Oregon*

that’s it. Only those 4. 

 

 

Conversely, eight states have statutes prohibiting them from maintaining a registry of firearms except in limited circumstances.

 

Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however. Without a central repository of all firearm sales records, gun tracing is a slow, cumbersome process.

 

 

 

 

 

[prairiewindmomma]

Oregon’s law is new (late 2022) and has already been contested. It only tracks the sale or transfer of weapons. If you, as of late 2022, already owned guns, you are not required to register those. Oregon also has no requirement to have a permit to simply own a gun. Lewelma’s MIL, as an example, could remain largely off the radar of the state registry. 

[Heartstrings]

At a federal level the ATF has some records, but only of gun selling businesses who have gone out of business and the records they do have are not searchable.   It’s not legal for them to maintain a database, that is banned by federal law.   The digitized, un searchable records have been contested.   Some believe a registry is the first step towards confiscation of all firearms.  
 

That thing that happens on my beloved cop TV shows where an agency searches a database for a gun and a few seconds later the owner pops up is fictional. It is a slow, manual, process, when it’s possible at all.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/09/fact-check-claim-atf-has-gun-registry-missing-context/9304431002/

Here's a quick rundown of the facts:

• ATF retains records from federally licensed firearms dealers, manufacturers and importers that go out of business. The records include information about gun sales and transfers.
• The records are stored as digital images that can't be searched for identifying information. The repository is essentially a giant folder full of pictures of forms.
• ATF can only access the records if a law enforcement agency asks for help tracing a gun linked to a crime.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Vintage81]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

That’s a great link.  A few things I pulled.  


further proof that the population is in agreement, and our leaders are thwarting the will of the people…..A nationwide survey conducted in August 2019 found that 62% of respondents favor laws requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry

****poll conducted in May 2001 found that 70% of respondents mistakenly believe that a registration system already exists in the United States.^4*******

 

States that Require of Facilitate Registration Records for All Firearms

• California*
• District of Columbia¹²
• Hawaii¹³
• Oregon*

that’s it. Only those 4. 

 

 

Conversely, eight states have statutes prohibiting them from maintaining a registry of firearms except in limited circumstances.

 

Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however. Without a central repository of all firearm sales records, gun tracing is a slow, cumbersome process.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll be honest, the Giffords website is not my first choice for information. I think it’s a more biased website, understandably so. However, when discussing this topic I try really hard to just look for data (which can be hard). Gun registration was mentioned and in my quick search this website had the best/easiest to read info. However, I would caution you on those surveys as they may not be the best representation of the entire country. I honestly don’t know how they conduct their surveys, but again I don’t think they’re completely unbiased. The gun registration issue seems to have lots of legal complexities, so I myself haven’t read up enough on it to make any opinions, but I find information always helps in the process. 

[Heartstrings]

24 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

I’ll be honest, the Giffords website is not my first choice for information. I think it’s a more biased website, understandably so. However, when discussing this topic I try really hard to just look for data (which can be hard). Gun registration was mentioned and in my quick search this website had the best/easiest to read info. However, I would caution you on those surveys as they may not be the best representation of the entire country. I honestly don’t know how they conduct their surveys, but again I don’t think they’re completely unbiased. The gun registration issue seems to have lots of legal complexities, so I myself haven’t read up enough on it to make any opinions, but I find information always helps in the process. 

That’s pretty close to what Pew Research says, they have 66% of American in support of a national registry.  A national, or even state level registry is just 1 of a package of potential laws that already enjoy wide support and could be passed in a bi partisan fashion without infringing on the right of gun owners.  But there is no will to do so among our leaders.  
 

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.  

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Heartstrings
Add link

[lewelma]

Apparently, the law during the purchase of the guns described above was that you had to have a receipt.  So in all the cases were 50 to 70 year old receipts for proof of purchase. No registration was required. At this point, if you want to sell a gun, then the dealer has to get it registered. 

In addition, apparently 2 of the guns were give-aways if you collected 'green stickers' -- some sort of purchase at a local store gave you stickers. If you collected enough, they would give you a gun kit that you would construct and sand, polish, and varnish. This was in the 1970s. Kind of surprising actually.

[AnotherNewName]

20 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

But,the restriction of rights is something that happens already.  You have the right to protest and gather, but only if you buy a permit.  This is a monetary tax meant to fund the safety concerns from exercising these rights and restrict mass gatherings by the poor.

Rights without responsibility is part of what landed us here.  If there is no way to attach a responsibility to the "well regulated militia", then it's time to use that word "amendment" and fix the Constitution again.

Actually, the right to protest doesn't require a permit in most cases.  It in fact cannot be required for most protests.

ACLU-Virginia has a nice explanation. white_paper_final_copyright.pdf (acluva.org)

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. And as I stated earlier, no one rational (including our current SCOTUS) has argued that all gun regulations are unconstitutional.  But when trying to create new ones what will actually pass judicial review should be considered.  Silly ideas like excessive taxes should not be take seriously as they are a waste of time.

 

 

 

[AnotherNewName]

10 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

We could also change liability rules and make gun manufacturer’s open for liability claims. As it stands, they are largely protected from lawsuits. 

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.