Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    But Penguinator, I agree with that post. My point is that there are root issues that aren't being addressed when only gun laws are focused on. This psycho gunman in Moncton used a rifle (actually, I think he had 2, but only used one) that was on Canada's registered list. But the fact that his rifle was restricted didn't matter to him, because he's going on a crazy shooting rampage, so violating the registration requirements are the least of his problems. Just like Elliot Rodger, there had to be resources available that could help him before it got to that stage.

    This was more my point with the Canadian example. Canada's gun registry database costs 70 million dollars a year to maintain, and it's not effective because no one can really do anything with it. Instead, how much more effective would mental health programs be across the provinces in Canada if that 70 million was put to better use? It's the same in the US. California has 3 firearms databases, but no resources to do anything with any of them. And yet, California is one of the states that bans cosmetic features like making a rifle with an adjustable stock illegal, and then when someone like Elliot Rodger, who was being treated by no less than 3 mental health professionals goes on rampage, the state is baffled.

    As far as "open carry" people go, I don't agree with them at all. The practice is stupid.
    Last edited by Mr44, Jun 6, 2014
    LostOnHoth likes this.
  2. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Erm, 44? The province of Ontario alone committed $85.66 billion/year for youth mental health services starting 2011. Spreading a single $70 million across all provinces, to be used on all age groups probably isn't likely to do that much. For another point of comparison, total public expenditure in 2003-2004 was $5.5 billion, making your proposal a 1.3% change in budget.

    Besides which, it is pretty disingenuous to talk about American opposition to a national registry database as being centered on the ability to "do anything with it." Much more of the public sentiment has in fact been the opposite--paranoid fears that the government might manage to do something sinister with the information.
  3. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Wocky, ok. ok. Is there a reason for the first part of your reply? Jeeez. The point is that you could spent 70 million a year on a pointless registration database that only really exists in name only, or put the same money to better use and get better results. Plant 70 million worth of trees a year. Or build 70 million worth of parks.. Who knows. I suppose another alternative is to go the other way and double? triple? the budget so you could maintain it and then actually have the capability to go out and investigate when violations occur. I wasn't interested in doing an accounting audit on Canada's books.

    As for your second sentence, who said anything about a national gun registry? I didn't. California can't do anything with their databases because there is not enough personnel to go around and enforce the requirements contained within. It's a budget issue, just like Canada. In both cases, these examples have databases-in the sense of collecting information just for information's sake- and then can't do anything else with them.

    Sometimes, you don't have to disagree just to disagree.
    Last edited by Mr44, Jun 6, 2014
  4. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
  5. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  6. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    Link

    So, apparently the Justice Department is going to reconstitute its domestic terrorism task force, which will focus on anti-government plots and racial violence. Good.
    Last edited by Chancellor_Ewok, Jun 10, 2014
    Juliet316 likes this.
  7. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  8. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    So apparently this is the NRA's wet dream:

  9. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I can't find a clip, but Jon Stewart making fun of Scalia was fabulous.

    "I could buy a gun and just give it to someone in the parking lot!"
    TX-20 and Juliet316 like this.
  10. beezel26 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 7
    Ironically the NRA is softening up on a lot things. Well better defining what it means to be a responsible gun owner. Walking around town with a ak 47 rifle is just crazy. of course the crazies don't like it.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  11. Ezio Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2013
    star 3
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That's similar to numerous other states already that don't seem to have any issues because of it.

    For example, in Virginia it's legal to carry in restaurants licensed to serve alcohol (legally speaking there are no bars), although you cannot drink if you are concealed carrying. It's legal to carry in a church (there is a restriction when a worship service is in progress, but that is only "without good and sufficient reason", a criteria that self defense meets). There is statewide preemption of firearm laws, so localities cannot prohibit carry in places not listed in state law (which pretty much prohibits carry in courthouses and jails, but not anywhere else controlled by local governments). Libraries, government centers, parks, and even police stations (although not in the secured portions that are considered jails) are all legal for carry. Permit holders can carry in the General Assembly building (and even get to bypass some of the security measures). If police see you open carrying they can't stop you to demand a permit (none required for open carry) or ID (although you can be required to identify yourself at night by name and place of residence, but not specifically down to your home address). If you are concealed carrying, police can require you to present your permit and ID, but there is no legal requirement that you inform police that you are carrying. On private property, property owners (or their agents) can prohibit firearms, but the only legal recourse is a trespassing charge if a person refuses to leave. (Technically a sign can make the trespassing charge effective, but only if it is placed where it could be reasonably seen, which many signs don't really do.) Schools are prohibited, but anyone can have one loaded and secured in their car. Permit holders can carry on school property as long as they remain in their car (such as while dropping off or picking up students).

    And Virginia isn't exactly the only state with laws like that. None of those laws have caused any significant problems in the decades that they have been in effect (the most recent change was 4 years ago, allowing concealed carry in restaurants licensed to serve alcohol - open carry was always legal). There's no reason to think that Georgia will see any more problems than those other states have. It will essentially be a non-event.
    ForgottennJedi1986 likes this.
  13. Ezio Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2013
    star 3
    Still, I don't see why lawmakers are pushing this pro gun momentum when so many parents/victims/sensible people are fighting for legal opposition to the gun madness.
    Valairy Scot and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  14. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Because the NRA still puts fear in many lawmakers hearts(or maybe more accurately political ambitions). As long as the NRA is capable of doing that, it's still too much of a powerful lobby for any type of reasonable gun control to push through.
    Last edited by Juliet316, Jun 23, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  15. Wanderguard Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2014
    star 1
    I can't stand the NRA, partly because of their political pull but largely because it gives people a reason to vilify gun owners who are actually responsible, sane people.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Jedi Merkurian and Juliet316 like this.
  16. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    This. There's been poll after poll that has stated that a lot of gun owners would actually be okay, with expanded/universal background checks, and yet the NRA is going full throttle of 'No Gun Control at all" in almost a Wild Wild West mentality.
  17. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Because there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you? Those people (not all of whom are members of the NRA) own firearms, many are licensed to carry firearms concealed, and do so for their own personal protection. They also vote more regularly than the average person. Evidence from other states also show that laws prohibiting many of the things that were relaxed do virtually nothing to reduce gun violence.

    Most of what you see in the Georgia law is just common sense. For example, in Virginia it used to be prohibited to carry a concealed firearm in an establishment licensed to server alcohol on premises. However, it was legal to openly carry that same firearm in those establishments. This led to what became known as the "Virginia Tuck", where a concealed carrier would pull back their jacket/shirt/cover garment when entering a restaurant in order to avoid breaking the law. Opponents of the change liked to talk about how it would allow guns in bars, implying that anyone going into a licensed establishment was going there to drink. In reality, it meant that a concealed carrier taking his family to dinner at Red Robin, or Red Lobster, or even places like Chipotle or Noodles & Co had to take extra steps (uncovering their firearm) whenever they went out to eat, unless they were going to someplace with food that comes in a box or bag with a clown on it. The law didn't make it illegal for people who are armed to drink. It only said that they couldn't carry concealed. It did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence, but it provided a major inconvenience to law-abiding citizens.

    Similarly, with regard to churches, why should the government single them out as a prohibited place to carry? Shouldn't that be left up the the church itself to decide? No one is saying that churches should be required to allow people to be armed. They are simply saying that it's not the government's place to prohibit it. (Additionally, some churches actually encourage some members to be armed, and that stopped at least one public shooting spree in 2007 at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.)

    The laws in question do nothing to stop actual gun violence, but they cause real problems for law abiding citizens. On that basis alone, it's worth repealing or revising them.
  18. Ezio Skywalker Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 29, 2013
    star 3
    Batman hates guns, and he's a smart person.
  19. Wanderguard Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2014
    star 1
    I would take no gun control over ineffective/unenforced gun control, because then you at least have a clean slate.

    I would be in favor of background checks and mental health evaluations, though, if only because they would actually do something unlike assault weapon bans.

    EDIT: That being said, I do personally enjoy the lax restrictions in my state of residence, and I don't recall the last time there was a well-publicized incident of mass gun violence in Texas, although my memory could just be failing me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Ezio Skywalker and Juliet316 like this.
  20. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    I still say, no civilian needs a weapon that was basically made for the battlefield (I.E. an AK-47), but if we could ever get enhanced background checks and mental health evaluations (that can satisfy privacy laws - I think it could be done with a some debate and thinking. For instance, unlike a sex - offender registry list, being barred from owning a gun because of mental health problems need not be made public to anybody but any potential employer, if say somebody's applying for a job as a security/police officer or trying to join the military i.e, positions that would absolutely require somebody have a firearm) pushed through, then I would be incredibly happy about that.
  21. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    It actually depends on who the question is asked.

    If the question is asked cold, along the lines of "Do you support background checks", then it tends to get high responses. However, if it is introduced with a description of the background checks that are currently required by law, there is a lot less support for "expanded" background checks. There's a lot of support in the general "it might be a good idea" form, but that support evaporates when you get to specific proposals.

    You also have to realize that most attempts to push "universal" background checks have caused a lot of big problems. For example, how do you define what a transfer is? When I go shooting with a friend and hand him my gun to try out? When I leave for the weekend, and my roommate might have access to my guns? What about if I leave on a 2-week vacation? What about going on a hunting trip with friends, and borrowing a gun from one of them when mine breaks for some reason? What about loaning one of my handguns to my wife, while her gun is at the gunsmith? According to the proposals Bloomberg is pushing, all of these would require a background check every time.

    Such background check schemes are severely flawed, and they should be defeated. As with many other forms of gun control, they are designed to make things more inconvenient for law abiding citizens without significantly affecting criminal behavior.
    ForgottennJedi1986 likes this.
  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I'm coming out against background checks. A high school friend of mine was recently convicted of murder and is now doing life in prison without possibility of parole. The main reason he didn't get away with it was due to the ******* background check. His friend (also an old acquaintance of mine) bought the murder weapon for my old classmate, a handgun, and shipped it cross country to him. The FBI was able to force the friend to cooperate by threatening him as an accessory to murder, then let him plead guilty to lying on the form 4473 - four years in prison for that. Really, that is just ******.
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    What other fundamental rights would you have contingent upon a mental health examination? You might disagree with the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right, but that is the law of the land, as stated by the Supreme Court in both Heller vs DC (2008) and McDonald vs Chicago (2010).

    In our society, we have a presumption of innocence, and a person must be adjudicated by way of due process before they can be denied a fundamental right. Your proposal would violate that presumption, by requiring anyone wanting to exercise that fundamental right to prove that they are innocent, rather than having the government prove that it should be denied to them.

    It is philosophically the equivalent of the old voter exams that were used to deny people their right to vote if they weren't "educated" enough. If you remember, those tests were created to be difficult for anyone to pass, and often were so subjective that anyone would pass or fail at the whims of the person giving the exam. Similarly, any mental health examination would ultimately be based in highly subjective opinions of whoever performs the examination.
    ForgottennJedi1986 likes this.
  24. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Jabba, I'm too exhausted to go indepth into trying to make heads/tails of your post, but I think you made the argument for background checks rather than against. Suffice it to say, on second glance, I think you just out beezeled beezel.

    Edit: KK, when I've had some sufficent rest (and when the Plumber that's supposed to come today comes, does what he needs to do, and leaves), I'll see what I can do about thinking up an indepth counter to your argument.
    Last edited by Juliet316, Jun 23, 2014
  25. CT-867-5309 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2011
    star 5