Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
short answer is NONE...especially if the question is ""what new gun laws would stop shootings"""
but including medical red flags in the background checks could and should
1. I am pretty sure the NSA and the FBI watch the internet (social boards etc) for people making statements that would be construed as threats...ie risk management, to find some of the threats to the USA and of its people (just like they did with the other day with the cali kids wanting to shoot up a school)
2. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems with background checks....easier background checks.....heck with today's technology a COMPLETE background check could be done in MINUTES,...too include medical (and a 'red flag' will NOT violate hipa laws either)
3. better medical documentation and referalls.....if some one has a mental issue..document it for jiminy crickets sake..... young adults like adam lanza should have been committed to an institution long ago...and had the doctors and his mother actually seeked help for the boy, he would have
4. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems with......more education, more training.......require some classes.....heck most of us, who LEGALLY own handguns have taken the CC class....and the standard could set set federally, but the states have control of how they do it, to accomplish the mission
5. better communication between all of our alphabet/federal/state/city/local agencies.....that would help too, and not only about purchasing weapons, but all other things too such as missing child support, revoked licenses, voting registration, laudenberg rules, medical mistakes(would it be nice if doctor A knew that doctor B perscribed this, so he/she can NOT perscribe something that will counteract/bad side effect medicine(to include RX(A) knowing that RX(B) filled dis,dat or the other ding, etc)))
6. over 50% of the homeless are Vets, and over 85% of the homeless are homeless becuase of mental health issues... yet the liberals NEVER address it
WHAT ARE THE LIBERALS GOING TO DO/POLICY/FUND TO HELP WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSSUES THAT ARE PLAGUING AMERICA......?????????
but to ban guns and to confisgate all weapons would not only be a violation of our 2nd amendment right...but also of the 4th amendment.......... the funny thing is liberals were all up in arms (pun intended) about "stop and frisk" saying it violated the 4th amendment.......hmmmm
While I agree with the mental health aspect of your ideas....nothing you listed here would have prevented the Oregon shooting.
The guns that were used were his mothers and she passed the background check.
The problem that 2A supporters and the NRA has with Universal Background checks is that they are unenforceable. To properly enforce background checks between private individuals, there would first have to be a central database of registered firearms. The way it is now, no one knows who owns what. Without registration there is no way to track firearm transfers. I could sell to my friend and no one would know.
Registration is the biggest no no of all no no's for 2A supporters, especially the NRA.
I'm a concealed carry instructor and I attend the NRA annual conference. All this is covered at this convention.
While I agree with the mental health aspect of your ideas....nothing you listed here would have prevented the Oregon shooting.
The guns that were used were his mothers and she passed the background check.
The problem that 2A supporters and the NRA has with Universal Background checks is that they are unenforceable. To properly enforce background checks between private individuals, there would first have to be a central database of registered firearms. The way it is now, no one knows who owns what. Without registration there is no way to track firearm transfers. I could sell to my friend and no one would know.
Registration is the biggest no no of all no no's for 2A supporters, especially the NRA.
I'm a concealed carry instructor and I attend the NRA annual conference. All this is covered at this convention.
This is correct, even in states like California where all new purchases are registered you still have millions of guns outside of the database. It will take 2-3 generation before the database became any sort of usable. People are basically asking for something that will cost billions of dollars, not help solve any crimes for 50-60 years, and infringe on civil rights. This is why Canada, which has a much smaller population and hundreds of millions fewer guns, gave up on gun registration as being useless and expensive.
While I agree with the mental health aspect of your ideas....nothing you listed here would have prevented the Oregon shooting.
The guns that were used were his mothers and she passed the background check...................
snip for ease of answering....
Chuck,
I think a proper background check (that includes medical history) would have (could have, should have) prevented it....here is why
1. the mother is diagnosed as aspergers, and bi-polar
2. the young man (son) is bi-polar and aspergers
3. the young man flunked out of basic training for the military (would love to see what his exit code is)
4. mother has said he had anger issues, and refuse to take his medicine
all of these could and should be red flags to prevent him or his mother from buying guns or at least a delay in their ability to purchase
again this is just like adam lanza, where the young man COULD have been institutionalize IF the doctors and his mother had actually done their jobs
I think a proper background check (that includes medical history) would have prevented it....here is why
1. the mother is diagnosed as aspergers, and bi-polar
2. the young man (son) is bi-polar and aspergers
3. the young man flunked out of basic training for the military (would love to see what his exit code is)
4. mother has said he had anger issues, and refuse to take his medicine
all of these could and should be red flags to prevent him or his mother from buying guns or at least a delay in their ability to purchase
again this is just like adam lanza, where the young man COULD have been institutionalize IF the doctors and his mother had actually done their jobs
JMHO
wch
The only thing that what cause a ban would have been a dishonorable discharge. Just having a mental illness doesn't mean you are 1. More dangerous than anyone else, 2. Cannot be a functioning member of society. Mental illness is completely shades of grey and you are parenting it is black and white. 1 in 4 Americans will have mental illness at some point this year. http://www2.nami.org/factsheets/ment..._factsheet.pdf
The only standard is if someone is determined by a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others. Period.
Blaming "mental illness" and background checks as some sort of problem solver is for the simple minded. The democrats use one as a scape goat while republicans use the other instead of addressing the real problems tied to crime.
This is correct, even in states like California where all new purchases are registered you still have millions of guns outside of the database. It will take 2-3 generation before the database became any sort of usable. People are basically asking for something that will cost billions of dollars, not help solve any crimes for 50-60 years, and infringe on civil rights. This is why Canada, which has a much smaller population and hundreds of millions fewer guns, gave up on gun registration as being useless and expensive.
Not to mention, if there widespread required registration, how would older guns be handled? I have several older long guns where the only identifying markings are the manufacturer and a couple letters denoting the year of manufacture, if that. Also an Arisaka rifle from WW II.
If you declare that a zone has to be gun free, the responsibility is on you to enforce it and make sure the facility is actually gun free. So if a movie theater is gun free, the owner would have to screen everyone, make the exits unassailable by small arms fire, and have armed guards present at all times covering every square foot. The alternative is much easier, allow responsible citizens to carry.
How about making any crime committed with a firearm a felony, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole? How about making failure to secure a firearm, which is then used in a crime, a felony as well, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole?
Don't think for a minute the NRA would support either of those ideas.
How about making any crime committed with a firearm a felony, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole? How about making failure to secure a firearm, which is then used in a crime, a felony as well, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole?
Don't think for a minute the NRA would support either of those ideas.
I would support the first part of it.
But you'd have to get the govt. to actually follow through.
You can make as many tough laws as you want, but at the end of the day if you refuse to prosecute, and plea bargain a bunch when you do, the law doesn't have the teeth it needs to be a deterrent.
Of course even if every person in the country supported and passed the law it would have zero impact on mass shootings.
Last edited by chadgates; 10-07-2015 at 02:39 PM..
How about making any crime committed with a firearm a felony, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole? How about making failure to secure a firearm, which is then used in a crime, a felony as well, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole?
Don't think for a minute the NRA would support either of those ideas.
Neither would Liberals, they always fight against mandatory minimums. Also, how would that be a deterrent anyway? The mass killing aspect carries even more time and they are doing that.
How about making any crime committed with a firearm a felony, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole? How about making failure to secure a firearm, which is then used in a crime, a felony as well, with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and no parole?
Don't think for a minute the NRA would support either of those ideas.
i agree and disagree with your post. i agree with making the commission of a crime using a firearm a felony, i think it already is anyway, except perhaps the crime of brandishing, and in arizona if you commit armed robbery, you get an automatic minimum sentence of five years, i agree though it should be ten. however the one i disagree with is your idea of failing to secure a firearm being a criminal offense. let say you go on vacation, and have your guns locked in a proper safe. and while you are on vacation, your home is burglarized and your safe broken into, your firearms stolen, and later used in a felony. would this mean under your rule that you are now on the hook for a ten year sentence? even though your firearms were properly locked up?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
