He purchased his gun legally, right? (Maybe I have the details wrong.) And he had something of a history of making violent statements, and of abusing his wife. I imagine a sufficiently thorough background check could have uncovered those things, and if such a check were required before all gun sales, it might have prevented this. Maybe conducting such thorough checks with such regularity would be too expensive to be worth it, or too much of a burden on legitimate gun owners, but it seems like that’s at least a conversation worth having.
You can’t stop every case; e.g., the Sandy Hook shooter took his mother’s guns rather than purchasing them, but not everyone has a close friend or relative who owns guns and allows them access to them. Even then, maybe requiring all gun owners to complete a safety course that emphasizes the importance of properly securing your weapons could make a difference. Better funding for mental health services could certainly make a difference in many cases.
We can’t stop every case, but we could certainly stop more than we are currently, and I’m not convinced we’ve hit the right balance of doing enough without going too far. And at least as far as I can tell the gun lobby is opposed to even having the conversation - as especially evident in bans on federal funding into research on gun violence (e.g., the Dickey Amendment). To me that says, “We’re so resistant to any more restrictions on gun ownership that we don’t even want to know if they would be effective at reducing gun violence.”
I’m fine with the current prohibitions for felons and those adjudicated mentally defective. It’s not like the Orlando shooter would have been hindered by being watch listed, and he wasn’t on any watch list. He was a contractor working security for DHS. He would have passed anything short of bans.
So yeah…there are no “reasonable common sense” proposals in your view because you see no problem to begin with. Therefore there is no discussion to be had.
I am with you on all that. I am mystified they can put you on the no-fly list now with no recourse on your part. If they made it so you could not buy a gun that would force it into the courts. Win-win in my view. It is insane the government can deem you a terrorist threat, put you on a no-fly list because of that but let you walk into a gun shop and buy all the guns and ammo you want.
How about allowing the CDC to study gun violence? (I know someone will tell me they can but the reality is they are effectively stymied from doing it.)
Those under age 18 while not hunting, target shooting or under parental supervision. No public carry.
Convicted felons during the time of probation, parole, or supervised release. Certain enumerated crimes like murder and others a lifetime ban.
Those adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others, obviously during confinement and supervised release, and a procedure established where this disability may be lifted after supervision ends. Exception if certain violent acts had been committed while under the disability which would have been murder, etc. if not for the disability.
Non-citizens or non-permanent residents. Permits would be issued to those who can provide documentation that they are law abiding—more strict requirements here, but objective requirements.
Those that have renounced U.S. Citizenship.
Those who current use unlawful controlled substances (except marijuana) or those who habitually abuse alcohol or marijuana. Certain misdemeanor crimes would be prima facie evidence of current use or abuse, but could be rebutted in court.
Violent misdemeanents–two or more violent misdemeanors within a period of time is prima facie evidence of unsuitability, but may be rebutted in court. (And I don’t make the distinction between domestic violence and other violence–I don’t see why it is somehow better or worse to cold-cock a stranger on the street versus a household member).
a fugitive from justice.
Those are all I can think of off the top of my head, and in some respects #7 is more strict than the current law, so there you go, I have proposed a gun control measure.
Dylann Roof is the only one who might’ve been stopped from purchase, but even then it didn’t happen due to a bureaucratic snafu, not because the law was too lax. And even then his prior arrest was something with a low correlation to violence (opioid possession).
Funding sounds good, but we should be doing that regardless of violence. I am acquainted with the sorry state of the mental health field. I am not convinced that anti- or pro-gun people have a good handle on what mental illness is, and I am skeptical that either side could write a law that is not knee-jerk.
The Dickey Amendment is more normally attached to an anti-abortion bill.
And to nitpick: it only restricts the Center for Disease Control from gun research; there are many, many more sources of funding if you wanted to do such research.
I suspect that almost everyone in this thread would more-or-less agree with those restrictions on the no-fly list, whether or not it’s being used for gun control or just to keep people off planes. At least, I’m hoping that regardless of the varying degrees to which we care about gun rights, we all care about our due process rights.
Perhaps there are some circumstances (e.g., someone is the subject of an active criminal investigation) where law enforcement might not want to reveal they’re under active investigation, but still might want to keep them off planes. But even so, there ought to at least be reasonable limits, like: you have to go before a judge and justify the restriction, and the restriction must be time limited with requests for extensions likewise having to be argued before a judge, and that once it expires the records of the proceedings must be made public. I’m not sure exactly where the line should be, but as a general rule law enforcement’s ability to operate in secret ought to be strictly limited, and their ability to maintain such secrecy indefinitely ought to be non-existent.
Yes, that’s my point. Making sweeping “We need better gun control laws” statements after a tragedy is pointless if none of the proposed laws would have stopped the shooting anyway.
She has a (D) next to her name but she is a Third Way politician and always has been. Maybe a neocon. She is certainly extremely hawkish, moreso even than some republicans. She hasn’t met a drone strike she doesn’t like yet.
In short, don’t confuse her with a liberal. She provably is not one.
Regulations should not be created in an attempt to prevent mass shootings; dying in a mass shooting is like winning the worst lottery ever created, and the regulations that would prevent a mass shooting often work at cross-purposes to regulations that can limit the damage caused by more mundane gun violence.
For example:
Having every patron in that nightclub armed might, in fact, have stopped the shooter.
However, allowing all nightclub patrons to be armed might result in more shooting deaths over the long term than might have been prevented in this case. Nightclub patrons are often in varying stages of intoxication, and drunk people are more likely to do something stupid. When you have no weapons, your stupidity might just get you a night in jail or some broken bones. When you introduce weapons into the equation, though, that moment of stupidity can escalate quickly into someone getting shot.
When crafting regulations, we must ask ourselves what problem we’re trying to solve. Are we just trying to prevent those mass shootings that make the headlines, but leaving the steady drum of shooting victims to pass by so long as there aren’t more than three of them at once? Or are we trying to address the overall problem?
Oh, I completely agree - mental health is woefully underfunded in general, and we ought to be listening to the experts in the field on how to fund it better and not just focusing on a few high-profile crimes. The benefits of better care for the mentally ill would go far beyond addressing these crimes.
That said, when these horrible tragedies happen I’m always a little hopeful that at least it will lead to a push to improve funding for mental health. Somehow that never seems to happen, despite it being the one thing both sides of the gun debate seem to agree is a reasonable measure.
In this case none that I can see (particularly since he worked for a security company that is contracted by Homeland Security).
That does not mean it isn’t a question worth asking. There have been 16 mass shootings in the not quite 12 years Obama has been in office. That is more than one a year and included the likes of this and Sandy Hook. In the past 50 years the US has racked up some 30+% of all mass shootings in the world while having 5% of the population.
So when do we decide enough is enough and try to have a serious conversation about what to do?
UltraVires may not see a problem but most people do see this as a problem. Clearly something is pretty broken.
I didn’t say it was not a problem. It clearly is. However, you admit that there was no law that you could have went back in time and passed to prevent this. We are in agreement on this.
So why are we now proposing new laws in response to this that you admit will be ineffective in preventing tragedies like this? I think that the serious conversation about what to do in response to these things is, by your own concession, not to enact new gun laws.
The statement was that these proposed laws would not have stopped ANY of these recent mass shootings. There is a big difference between 100% and 0%. Any inquiry we have should stop when all sides concede that the proposal would be absolutely ineffective instead of just falling short of perfection.
