Like I always say, crazies going on shooting sprees is the price we have to pay for a right to bear arms. There’s no way to prevent the former as long as we have the latter.
Cite? Loughner did. So did the Ft. Hood shooter.
I have a simple compromise to help possibly reduce the number of guns transfered to people who shouldn’t have them.
Right now, if I want to make a sale of a gun to a co-worker, there is no practical way for me to determine if they are an allowable recipient, unless I do the transaction through a gun dealer, who is not only going to charge $10-$50 on top of the deal for their cut, but we have to go down to a gun store amenable to it in the first place.
I propose that the instant check system be open to any individual to call, so we can do the same checks on prospective buyers as a dealer. I’m not talking about filling out Form 4473, just looking at their DL or State ID and calling it in. This would be an optional system, BUT it would have a carrot to encourage using it - if you use the system to check, and the person comes back flagged as “good”, then you become automatically and permanently exempt from any civil or criminal action related to what the recipient does with the gun after you sell it (unless of course you yourself are involved in a future crime involving said gun, duh).
This would result in potentially stopping the transfer of guns to people who shouldn’t have them by a small extent. Of course it wouldn’t have stopped Loughner. But I think it’s a step that both sides could agree upon.
The protest to this will be people saying “but this violates our privacy!” but I disagree. For one thing, you have the option of buying your gun from anyone else who doesn’t want to call in. For another, very few complain about gun store employees somehow violating privacy when they phone in IDs. Finally, no record, other than that the buyer and seller keep, is sent in to ATF to register the sale.
New Orleans, after Katrina
California, registration and later confiscation of SKS rifles.
Two local stories.
I don’t agree with Argent Towers’s proposal simply because we already had sufficient laws in place to stop Loughner’s actions; they just weren’t applied properly. (Please help me out if I make mistakes on the following statements)
- To purchase a firearm from a business, the FFL-holder needs to run an instant background check on the purchaser, a “NICS check”.
2)This background check alerts the seller if, among other things, the purchaser is a felon or has been involuntarily committed for mental illness. If so, then the seller cannot sell a firearm to that buyer.
-
Loughner had made death threats to multiple people in Pima County over the prior year.
3a) While, near as I can tell, your garden-variety death threat isn’t a felony in Arizona, making them should get the cops to show up and investigate you. AFAIK, he wasn’t even charged. Did the police even interview him about the threats he allegedly made? I can’t find any cites that they did or didn’t. -
Involuntary commitment of an individual requires an assessment is “persistently or acutely disabled.” (Cite. Note, this is essentially unique to Arizona. The article claims that most jurisdictions require that the committed be a danger to themselves or to others)
-
Loughner was in the midst of a schizophrenic episode during the period where he was making the death threats: The youtube videos on grammar, UFO message board denizens thinking he was crazy, his instructors at community college were scared of him, the college kicking him out for being unable to behave.
My point with all of these statements is that I find it very hard to understand why, if the police showed up to interview him, figure out whether he did it or not, assess his mental state, etc… he didn’t end up being committed. Admittedly, if/when the police interviewed him, he may have acted like Ted Bundy. So if he was committed, like he should have been, then he gets flagged on NICS, and he can’t buy a gun at a gun store. All with the laws we already had in place. Additional laws aren’t going to work either, if the police utilize them as haphazardly as happened in this case.
If you got raped, you did not resist strongly enough (no doubt because you wanted it, slut). :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Cite? What were the threats?
Any safe or lock can be broken into given enough time. Do you want to see pics of 1000lb gun safes broken in while their owners went on vacation?
Grabbed those from google just now. Like everything in a crisis, not sure how accurate those reports are, and whether the media is just incestuously reporting each others’ rumors as news; still, when the Pima County sheriff is paraphrased as saying
Then I’m comfortable with asserting that he’d made death threats before.
For much more speculative accusations, a blogger, The Cholla Jumps, stated that:
Take that with a giant grain of salt. Amy Poehler would be delighted to realize that Parks and Rec had that kind of pull. I certainly don’t believe those accusations without further evidence of malfeasance.
What would be interesting would be the release of files detailing Loughner’s interactions with the various organs of Pima County law enforcement and mental health departments. IMHO, it needs to be a bigger story than Congresswoman Giffords’s transfers to this, that, and the other hospital.
If it’s true he’d been calling people, then I’d accept the assertion. Otherwise I’m more inclined to think he was mischaracterizing the documented instances in which people felt threatened by Loughner but he didn’t actually threaten to kill them. Anyway I don’t want to take this thread off topic.
Not really. i just want to see gun owners act responsibly.
Who doesn’t?
Back atcha. What do you think “responsible gun ownership” means, and should we have laws to enforce it?
Keep it safe, keep it secure. If it gets stolen, call the cops.
Well, that’s a bit absurd. You know, if you got mugged, you didn’t avoid mugging well enough, either. Clearly, it’s your fault. And you’re going to make that a crime, now?
Well, enough people jumped on this. But I suppose it was obvious. Shall we drop it?
I’m not dropping it. If I get mugged, nobody else is endangered. If I fail to secure my weapons, other people get hurt. I would go so far as to make it a felony if a child gets a hold of a gun and hurts himself or others. Jailtime. I am not kidding, either.
And if you fail to keep it safe or secure, other people get hurt or killed. But hey, can’t be helped, things happen, call the cops, not your problem. That’s “responsible gun ownership” ? Where in that are gun owners ever held responsible?
I presume you have the same penalties in mind if a child poisons itself with drugs or household chemicals. Or drowns in a five gallon bucket.
Look, if you want to remove guns from civilian ownership, work on doing that outright. Repealing the 2nd ammendment is what you should be doing. We’ve had enough experience with the nibbling-away strategy and the “it’s for the children"strategy” that when you suggest this, all you really do is mark yourself as dishonest.
If it is not obvious, I believe guns should be treated differently than buckets, or chemicals or cars or any other object on earth that could conceivably kill people. Hand guns are designed to kill people; gun owners should show responsibility that reflects that.
I don’t want to outlaw guns. I want gun owners to accept responsibility for their ownership. We don’t need to repeal the Second Amendment to do that, because it does not infringe on their rights to own or use guns. It just holds them responsible for keeping them out of the hands of those who could hurt somebody. But apparently, responsible gun ownership is too much to ask.
I agree. That child should serve hard time. Shawshank em’. (joking)
You’re really talking about negligence as an issue, not guns. And so the point about drugs and chemicals is spot-on.