Once again, a school, a shooter....and we do the drill yet again.....

[Dan Murphy]

If I am thinking of getting a Glock handgun, why can't I add a switch to it?

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I see a lot of parallels with voter suppression.

Our right to vote is in the constitution and should be vigorously supported. Voting should be easy and there should be lots of options. Rules should not be implemented that either by design or by accident make exercising the right to vote unduly difficult.

The second amendment is in the constitution. It should be vigorously supported. Buying a firearm should be easy and there should be lots of options. Rules should not be implemented that either by design or by accident make exercising the right to buy a firearm unduly difficult.

You know, when you mentioned the background check fee, the poll tax is exactly what came to my mind. Poll tax is illegal because it disenfranchises low income voters from participating in their right to vote. So I could see where a background check fee could have a similar consequence. At the same time, elections are not free. They are paid for by the taxpayer. So yes, I would agree that universal background check costs should be paid for by the taxpayer as well, as a simple cost of supporting our second amendment rights.

It makes me also wonder - elections are coordinated, organized, and carried out by the government. I don't go to a private 'vote dealer' to secure my right to vote, I go to my polling place as coordinated and run by the government. Perhaps the government could also be the ones responsible for selling the 'arms?' That would close all kinds of issues with discrepancies in types of sales. I mean, we have a right to bear the 'arms,' - but that doesn't necessarily indicate we have the right to sell the 'arms,' right?

 

[VandVsmama]

A few thoughts in no particular order:

1. The problem is multifaceted and requires a multifaceted solution.
2. Mental illness is just one part of it. In my opinion, a big part of it, but not all of it.
3. Gun laws in the US are different in different states. There are some gun laws which are at a federal level, some at a state level, and even others at a county and/or city level.
4. This country needs more long term inpatient mental illness treatment options.
5. Just try going out there yourself right now to set up a new patient appointment with a psychiatrist and/or therapist and you can see how hard it is to even get an appointment.
6. SMI (severe mental illness), in my opinion, requires both psychiatric care and talk therapy.
7. If you see a psychiatrist, you'll be lucky to have 15 min w/them once a month. And the appointment is primarily about managing your symptoms...not actually helping you deal with things in every day life while also coping with a long term chronic illness.
8. I do not support the notion of mandatory psychiatric evaluations prior to one being allowed to purchase a firearm.
9. Anybody who doesn't like the ability for one to own a firearm in the US should lobby their elected officials in order to try to get a Constitutional amendment passed. Requirements for that are spelled out in the Constitution.
10. Some states allow private individuals to do gun sales to other private individuals. Not all states allow this. You can even have variation within a state from 1 county to another on this.
11. Some states do not allow you to transport larger quantities of firearms across their states' lines unless it's done through a federally licensed firearms dealer. This is a factor if you are moving from 1 state to another.
12. Different states also have very different laws from other states about concealed weapons permits. CCW permits isn't just for firearms, though...also often includes knives of a certain size.
13. Anybody who is thinking of purchasing a firearm should go read a book about all of their local, state, and federal laws and should also take an NRA handgun course (the majority of said class is spent in a classroom discussing gun safety, gun laws, and how to be a responsible gun owner).

 

[CdnCarrie]

Change it.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Until it is changed though, don't treat rights written into the constitution as though one is less important than another.

Would you not agree that lives are more important than someone owning a material object?

The right to life IS more important than gun ownership.

I’m reading the new Sandy Hook book right . It’s sad how delusional people are.

 

[AppleDumpling]

Can people not admit the US is different from other countries, in LOTS of things? Many of which can factor into the number of shootings

Sure, I admit that there are many differences between the US and other countries. I admit there are multiple factors that contribute to gun violence, including mental health issues. Still to me, the most obvious is the availability of guns. No other country comes close to the sheer volume of guns per capita owned by Americans. That’s a fact that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. No other country has the same gun culture, or a lobbying group comparable to the NRA, that holds so much influence over our legislators.

The WHY is very important after these incidents. If we can figure out the WHY, we may be able to stop them. However, many times (most?), we never get to a "why".

I agree that the why is important to try to prevent these tragedies from occurring again and again. Thus far we have failed miserably as a nation. IMO, the HOW is also important. You can get a team of experts to study why a young man might feel compelled to gun down innocent victims, but the fact remains, if he was not able to obtain a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about it. Sure he could use a knife or other weapon, but statistically the majority of murders are caused by guns.

Rights matter as well.

No laws should be passed to restrict or limit rights written into the constitution at an undue level.

What about the fundamental right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does one’s right to own a gun supersede and infringe upon the rights of others to go out in public with a reasonable expectation of personal safety? Of course there are multitudes of law-abiding gun owners, who will never use it to harm innocent people. However the potential is always there, and I have no realistic means to defend against it. IMO, when your rights start to affect the lives of other people, it’s time to re-evaluate the priorities in our society.

 

[VandVsmama]

Would you not agree that lives are more important than someone owning a material object?

The right to life IS more important than gun ownership.

I’m reading the new Sandy Hook book right . It’s sad how delusional people are.

Careful...that's going to head down the abortion debate rabbit hole!

 

[sam_gordon]

Exactly! It’s such a cop out to blame mental illness. Can it be a cause? Sure, absolutely. But it’s also not the only issue. It paints all people dealing with mental health issues in such a bad light.

It's such a cop out to blame gun ownership. Can it be a cause? Sure, absolutely. But it's also not the only issue. It paints all people who own firearms in such a bad light.

See how that works?

This is such a good question, but it’s one that rarely gets answered. They don’t answer, because they can’t give a good answer to it.

Maybe because there is not a single answer to it.

Still to me, the most obvious is the availability of guns. No other country comes close to the sheer volume of guns per capita owned by Americans. That’s a fact that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. No other country has the same gun culture, or a lobbying group comparable to the NRA, that holds so much influence over our legislators.

What about the way we raise our kids? What about the number of single parent (or split) households? What about our education system? What about our health care system?

What about the fundamental right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does one’s right to own a gun supersede and infringe upon the rights of others to go out in public with a reasonable expectation of personal safety? Of course there are multitudes of law-abiding gun owners, who will never use it to harm innocent people. However the potential is always there, and I have no realistic means to defend against it. IMO, when your rights start to affect the lives of other people, it’s time to re-evaluate the priorities in our society.

@kdonnel and @mrodgers right to own a gun does NOT infringe on your rights. Please explain how it does. Oh, the "potential" is there? The "potential" is also there for someone to take a car through a crowd of people. The "potential" is there for someone to stab you with a knife. HOW @kdonnel and @mrodgers USE their right could infringe upon yours. If you want to take away their right to own firearms, take steps to do so.

FWIW, I own one shotgun. I think it's a .22. We inherited it when my FiL passed away. It hasn't come off the closet shelf since we got it 8+(?) years ago. There are no bullets for it in the house. I only say this to point out I'm not a "die hard" 2A advocate.

 

[CdnCarrie]

See how that works?

Maybe because there is not a single answer to it.

The answer is glaringly obvious but you are in denial.
But yes let’s blame single moms instead.

 

[mrodgers]

Then why aren't there this level of mass shootings in other countries. Are you saying American parenting is worse than then the rest of the world?

The bolded is just a straw arguement because you don't agree with gun control.

Well that's a bunch of baloney. It's not a gun problem. If there was a gun problem with 300 million guns, if it was a gun problem, it would be far worse than what is happening now.

What is the difference between a person who is a firearm dealer and an individual just selling a gun? Why would someone become a firearm dealer if they could just sell guns as an individual with less hassle?

Very good question and one I have as well that goes beyond the gun debate and into our society here in the US under alienated individual rights of the citizens. What is the difference between our personal businesses and us as individuals. Does business fall under the constitution? Does big powerful corporations fall under constitutional rights?

This housing thing we are in the middle of currently has me questioning that. As big business and corporations have bought up a lot of real estate lately I have fallen victim of my home being bought out. As I rent, my life does not really belong to me. I have rules set upon me that I can not live my life as I see fit. I am at the last step before homelessness and my very lovely and well taken care of mobile home park full of people trying to get by of older folk on low fixed incomes, many disabled folk, many fathers who's lives were lost as the family broke apart, many widows and widowers, many in their 70's still needing to work 40 hours a week to get by. Bought out and exploited by some big faceless corporation from 3 states away. Immediate rent jacking of 40% for all those poor folk who are stuck at the bottom of the barrel (not all, I'm sure many choose to live here.) These people who don't have a lot of money are here because they can't afford $1000 rent or $1500 mortgages.

In discussions about economy and when people go on forums and complain about the price of products or commodities, others always bark the "business is in business to make money, not be a charity." Issue with that is, we all have to live together in society. We all have to play well with each other, and that includes things like when I own a piece of property and you rent it from me to live on, I feel I should be reasonable in what I accept for the exchange of your use of my property. If not, we will fail as a society and are failing as a society. Now the big rich powerful corporations take over everything including the ability for you to live a reasonable life because they are not reasonable with need based situations. Everyone needs a place to live. As the big corporations take over, they are not willing to play well with others and the lowest of society are now getting exploited and soon to be removed and kicked from society, judging by the nasty email that went out about people not paying rent on time now.

So who has rights? I feel the rights of the people who make up society, and it doesn't just include constitutional rights, trumps those who gather together to wield overwhelming monetary power overtop of those people who make up society. Much like how many talk about universal health care being a human right, many necessities should be a human right.

So yeah, just like that above little side step, I feel there is a massive difference between a business firearm purchase and a private purchase from an individual of our society. Then again, there also is a massive difference between a private owner of a business and a big corporation of a gang of people. I don't have a specific answer to the difference as the business could be merely an individual of society who owns it or a corporations to which the transaction of selling goods is no difference in the two. I do not know why the difference in purchase is there in regard to the laws such as a dealer needing to have an FFL.

I just found this, Freedom of Individual Enterprise, which says, "America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above.

So earlier I said I thought there was something about commerce in the Constitution and I was trying to find it, and I did say I could be wrong and that would be the case. Not specifically in the Constitution as a right. And note, whatever I said above in this post are strictly my feelings an opinions just so there's no confusion.

 

[sam_gordon]

The answer is glaringly obvious but you are in denial.
But yes let’s blame single moms instead.

Sigh. If that's what you think I said, I can't help you.

People on BOTH sides of the issueS refuse to even CONSIDER differing opinions. This is why things won't change.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Sigh. If that's what you think I said, I can't help you.

People on BOTH sides of the issueS refuse to even CONSIDER differing opinions. This is why things won't change.

Agreed.
Now back to the Sandy Hook book..,,

 

[CdnCarrie]

Well that's a bunch of baloney. It's not a gun problem. If there was a gun problem with 300 million guns, if it was a gun problem, it would be far worse than what is happening now.


Very good question and one I have as well that goes beyond the gun debate and into our society here in the US under alienated individual rights of the citizens. What is the difference between our personal businesses and us as individuals. Does business fall under the constitution? Does big powerful corporations fall under constitutional rights?

This housing thing we are in the middle of currently has me questioning that. As big business and corporations have bought up a lot of real estate lately I have fallen victim of my home being bought out. As I rent, my life does not really belong to me. I have rules set upon me that I can not live my life as I see fit. I am at the last step before homelessness and my very lovely and well taken care of mobile home park full of people trying to get by of older folk on low fixed incomes, many disabled folk, many fathers who's lives were lost as the family broke apart, many widows and widowers, many in their 70's still needing to work 40 hours a week to get by. Bought out and exploited by some big faceless corporation from 3 states away. Immediate rent jacking of 40% for all those poor folk who are stuck at the bottom of the barrel (not all, I'm sure many choose to live here.) These people who don't have a lot of money are here because they can't afford $1000 rent or $1500 mortgages.

In discussions about economy and when people go on forums and complain about the price of products or commodities, others always bark the "business is in business to make money, not be a charity." Issue with that is, we all have to live together in society. We all have to play well with each other, and that includes things like when I own a piece of property and you rent it from me to live on, I feel I should be reasonable in what I accept for the exchange of your use of my property. If not, we will fail as a society and are failing as a society. Now the big rich powerful corporations take over everything including the ability for you to live a reasonable life because they are not reasonable with need based situations. Everyone needs a place to live. As the big corporations take over, they are not willing to play well with others and the lowest of society are now getting exploited and soon to be removed and kicked from society, judging by the nasty email that went out about people not paying rent on time now.

So who has rights? I feel the rights of the people who make up society, and it doesn't just include constitutional rights, trumps those who gather together to wield overwhelming monetary power overtop of those people who make up society. Much like how many talk about universal health care being a human right, many necessities should be a human right.

So yeah, just like that above little side step, I feel there is a massive difference between a business firearm purchase and a private purchase from an individual of our society. Then again, there also is a massive difference between a private owner of a business and a big corporation of a gang of people. I don't have a specific answer to the difference as the business could be merely an individual of society who owns it or a corporations to which the transaction of selling goods is no difference in the two. I do not know why the difference in purchase is there in regard to the laws such as a dealer needing to have an FFL.

I just found this, Freedom of Individual Enterprise, which says, "America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above.

So earlier I said I thought there was something about commerce in the Constitution and I was trying to find it, and I did say I could be wrong and that would be the case. Not specifically in the Constitution as a right. And note, whatever I said above in this post are strictly my feelings an opinions just so there's no confusion.

Got it!
Not guns. It’s the single moms.

 

[AppleDumpling]

What about the way we raise our kids? What about the number of single parent (or split) households? What about our education system? What about our health care system?

I’m not going to repeat myself or go back and forth on this. I agree those may be contributing factors, but don’t believe blaming guns is a cop out. Is every gun owner a criminal? Of course not. Does every child from a single parent household become a criminal? Of course not. But the common denominator is the gun. The gun is the direct cause of injury or death to the victims of a shooting.

 

[mrodgers]

I guess I don't really see why it would be unconstitutional to require a hobbyist to submit the form for a background check when it is required for the guy or gal just trying to make a living.

Something that I skimmed through looking for other information, I think I caught something about the government can put restrictions on the dealers when the people have available other means of acquiring arms to exercise their right, which private sale perhaps is said other means? It is just something I recall briefly skimming over.

As I mentioned, a coworker is very knowledgeable about firearm regulations and holds an FFL himself. I think because sales over the internet are possible, but the gun would have to be shipped to be picked up at an FFL holder, which is usually your local gun shop and it allows him to ship a firearm directly to the buyer as a private sale. I have quite a lot of questions I want to ask him about all this.

 

[sam_gordon]

I’m not going to repeat myself or go back and forth on this. I agree those may be contributing factors, but don’t believe blaming guns is a cop out. Is every gun owner a criminal? Of course not. Does every child from a single parent household become a criminal? Of course not. But the common denominator is the gun. The gun is the direct cause of injury or death to the victims of a shooting.

The knife is the direct cause of injury or death to the victims of a stabbing.

IMO, calling "mental health" a cop out is equal to saying "guns" are a cop out. I personally believe there ARE things that can be done to help the situation specific to the weapon without violating 2A. However, the last time I made the suggestion on the Dis, I got points. So I won't. I also believe there are OTHER factors NOT related to the weapon that should ALSO be looked at.

Let me ask this... if the gun is the reason these things are happening, why hasn't @kdonnel or @mrodgers gone on a shooting rampage? I mean, the gun causes the situation, right?

 

[AppleDumpling]

@kdonnel and @mrodgers right to own a gun does NOT infringe on your rights. Please explain how it does. Oh, the "potential" is there? The "potential" is also there for someone to take a car through a crowd of people. The "potential" is there for someone to stab you with a knife. HOW @kdonnel and @mrodgers USE their right could infringe upon yours. If you want to take away their right to own firearms, take steps to do so.

It affects my freedoms. As I said, life and liberty. We now have a dangerous situation when these type of incidents happen so frequently, it’s ridiculous. Only in the US. (It is incomprehensible to people in other first world countries.) Those people shot in stores and churches and movie theaters were just going about their daily lives and had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The children killed in their schools, never had a chance to live and be educated, and grow up to adulthood. Didn’t they have that right? Of course I support more restrictive gun laws.

And don’t compare guns to cars and knives. They are necessary for other purposes. Guns have one purpose, by design.

 

[mrodgers]

This is such a odd, twisted, foreign concept. I cannot even fathom the thought process behind this.
Buying a firearm should be difficult. Lives are what matter.
And this thought process is exactly why you will never solve the problem.

300+ million firearms. How many are used in crime? How many are used to deter or defend against crime? Live do matter. My life matters. Your life matters. Wanting it to be difficult to purchase the best resource you have to succeed against your attacker says that your life doesn't matter. My life doesn't matter. My mother's life doesn't matter. My daughters' lives don't matter. There is no definitive number, it is said that firearms are used 300,000 to 3,000,000 times to protect against an oppressor. That's 300k to 3 million lives that mattered because they had the best means to protect themselves from someone meaning them harm.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

I appreciate the discussion and especially the education on some terminology that I used incorrectly, and I definitely feel more knowledgeable about the reasoning behind the arguments there are against universal background checks (though I do still think there are ways it could be improved).

It seems like mental health is the biggest common ground that many here have as a way to address the gun violence issue. Our mental health care system is so lacking. I think we (as a country, not we here on the disboards) should make some improvements to mental heath care and collect the data on how/if it has improved the gun violence situation. I mean, what's the worst that could happen? We learn something? We improve someone's quality of life? We maybe prevent a handful of mass shootings? Though, I think my little flicker of optimism has gone out - it doesn't seem like any mental health care improvements would really be supported by all, even if many agree that is a big part of the problem.

Will join again next time in a few days. Maybe we'll solve it then!

 

[AppleDumpling]

FWIW, I own one shotgun. I think it's a .22. We inherited it when my FiL passed away. It hasn't come off the closet shelf since we got it 8+(?) years ago. There are bullets for it in the house. I only say this to point out I'm not a "die hard" 2A advocate.

That’s great. I mean it. FWIW, I’ve never owned a gun, never lived in a home with guns, or even handled a gun, and I have zero need or interest in ever doing so. (Which I’m sure comes as no surprise.) Despite that, while I don’t agree with you and other gun owners, I do respect your right currently to own them. For me, it’s a case of just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. To be honest, I don’t understand some people’s obsession with guns. I support sensible gun control.

 

[sam_gordon]

It affects my freedoms. As I said, life and liberty.

So the shotgun I have in my closets affects YOUR freedom? Sorry, not buying it.

We now have a dangerous situation when these type of incidents happen so frequently, it’s ridiculous. Only in the US. (It is incomprehensible to people in other first world countries.) Those people shot in stores and churches and movie theaters were just going about their daily lives and had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The children killed in their schools, never had a chance to live and be educated, and grow up to adulthood. Didn’t they have that right? Of course I support more restrictive gun laws.

And don’t compare guns to cars and knives. They are necessary for other purposes. Guns have one purpose, by design.

Actually guns can be used for multiple things. The founding fathers felt (say that 10 times fast) that Americans should be allowed to have guns. Maybe they were wrong (they were about other things). So go about the process of changing the Constitution.