145 Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence (nytimes.com) 497
In a direct and urgent call to address gun violence in America, the chief executives of some of the nation's best-known companies sent a letter to Senate leaders on Thursday, urging an expansion of background checks to all firearms sales and stronger "red flag" laws. From a report: "Doing nothing about America's gun violence crisis is simply unacceptable and it is time to stand with the American public on gun safety," the heads of 145 companies, including Levi Strauss, Twitter and Uber, say in the letter [PDF], which was shared with The New York Times. The letter -- which urges the Republican-controlled Senate to enact bills already introduced in the Democrat-led House of Representatives -- is the most concerted effort by the business community to enter the gun debate, one of the most polarizing issues in the nation and one that was long considered off limits. The debate and the decision to sign -- or not sign -- are a case study in how chief executives must weigh their own views and the political risks to their businesses. Missing from the list, however, are some of America's biggest financial and technology companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.
Executives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously tech Executives are so full of themselves. Just because you got lucky with a major expansion in tech doesn't make your opinion more valid than anyone else's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Same goes for (traditional) celebs, influences, sports players, politicians, authors, etc... yet all too often we are told to listen to the likes of Alyssa Milano or Colin Kaepernick because they know better than everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not because they know more. It's because they have followers who may know more.
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely, the ability to create a large number of followers is orthogonal from being able to speak about a particular topic intelligently.
Alex Jones has a rather large following... I hope we are not going to take his opinions seriously about dietary supplements, just because he speaks out about them and sells them.
Re: (Score:2)
The opinion of celebrities or executives isn't worth one iota more... but it certainly does carry a lot more weight with certain (large) groups of people (called "voters").
That's because the voters are sitting on their thumbs, or are looking for their own little piece of the pie. Majority rule is following its predicted path to tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that sad? You're arguing against any kind of social organization at all. I like to think people are whining that "the magical meritocracy" doesn't exist, where everyone has as much influence as they 'deserve', and where the definition of 'deserve' is deemed not germane to the complaint.
Re: (Score:3)
True more many issues, but in the US, opinions on guns are pretty firm (on both sides), and politicians understand that well. Any politician's position on guns will simply represent the poll numbers for his electorate, which change very little (polls have become a bit misleading in the past decade, as the practice of carefully crafted polls to influence issues became common, but still).
And in the US, it's entirely a moot point. The number of gun-owners of the "come and take it" variety outnumbers the poli
Re: (Score:3)
Delusional. The number of people who would be prepared to carry a gun for the sole purpose of taking your gun away from you is a whole lot higher that the "come and take it" variety.
Do you ... know any gun guys? At all?
Connecticut, not exactly the most populous state, passed a law requiring registration of long arms (rifles etc) a couple years back. An estimated 20,000 people did not comply. That's a couple of infantry divisions worth of "come and take it".
Washington state recently passed a law restricting private sales of guns (requiring background checks, IIRC). There was a protest on the steps of the state capital where hundreds of people gathered to buy and sell guns illegally,
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Informative)
If there are bans on firearms, all it takes is a metal shop, and one can have a servicable piece.
This is a silly argument. Sure, if guns are banned, then 0.001% of the population may make their own, but the vast majority will not.
The vast majority of gun owners are not the problem either. There are over 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in America, the vast majority are never used for mischief. Like everything else, they will be available for those who really want them, and the intersection of people who want them and are willing to get them illegally is probably disproportionately also composed of the people you don't want to have them.
All it takes is a guy with a hammer, a shovel, and some time, to make an AK-47.
Re: Executives? (Score:3)
Here's how I say it, got it elsewhere:
Legal gun owners in the US have over 300,000,000 weapons and more than a trillion rounds of ammunition. If we were the problem, you'd know about it.
Re:Executives? (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you could actually read the summary and notice that levi strauss is not a tech company, and indeed there is a lot of various companies.
Now, sure, being the head of a big company shouldn't give you more voice, but it's worth a shot (pun) as the republicans just ignore the overwhelming majority of the population that want universal background checks at least.
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Informative)
overwhelming majority of the population that want universal background checks at least.
There already are background checks to purchase a firearm from a dealer.
If you're talking about sales between private individuals I'd be willing to listen if you can explain how the government will track and enforce such against private individual sales of guns that were originally sold legally long ago and/or without any registration paperwork.
Fun fact, most rifle-type firearms out there have no registration paperwork or list of owners. If I sold an AR-15 I bought ten years ago from a friend to another friend, how will the government know to be able to enforce any sort of private-sale background check laws?
Strat
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are all kinds of things that are illegal to do that you can get away with in private, and yet people get caught doing them regularly - and are convicted and sentenced. Just because every person who commits a crime is not caught doesn't nullify the deterrent nature of making it illegal. And just because something was illegal to do in the past doesn't make it unenforceable to charge people with doing something in the future.
Re:Executives? (Score:4, Interesting)
The big problem with requiring background checks on private-party transfers is that a great many things inadvertently classify as "transferring" a firearm.
Leaving your weapon in someone else's vehicle is a transfer in some jurisdictions. Letting someone else test-fire a few rounds as a transfer in some jurisdictions. Letting someone house-sit for you can be a transfer of the weapons in that house if they're reasonably accessible (ie: the safe key is in a location known to the person house-sitting).
Let's say I have some number of weapons at home, and I have someone coming over to visit for a few days who should be kept away from weapons (history of psychotic incidents, alcohol or drug abuse, just got out of jail, etc.). As it stands right now, I can drive those weapons to a trusted friend's house and leave them in his care. Right now, this does not require a background check. In many states that require background checks for private transfers, my friend would need to pass a background check to take temporary possession of the weapons, and I would need to pass a background check in order to retrieve my own weapons!
So what do I do? The responsible thing would be to pay for two background checks and the filing paperwork. This is a tax on doing the right thing; that is, I would be incentivized to keep the weapons within reach of a dangerous person.
I have been that trusted friend before. I'd do it again, and I'd do it without filing paperwork because the paperwork makes no one safer.
This is not a law that makes the world safer. It is a law that makes the world more burdensome.
Re:Executives? (Score:4, Insightful)
The big problem with requiring background checks on private-party transfers is that a great many things inadvertently classify as "transferring" a firearm.
So....when you create the law mandating universal background checks you simply define transfer not as a transfer of property, but a transfer of ownership. If you ask someone to house sit for you for a few days they don't magically become the owner of your house, they can't just go out and pawn your TV. So why would that be considered transfering your gun to them? If I dive over to your house and let you borrow my weedeater and I don't come pick it back up until next weekend it's still my weedeater. I haven't relinquished ownership of it.
A firearm isn't transferred until actual ownership of the firearm is transferred. Problem solved.
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Informative)
You haven't read the Dem bill that all the yelling is about, have you?
Hint: I've got second cousins that I hunt with from time to time. Under the proposed bill, me letting my second cousin shoot my rifle would be a "transfer". As would handing it to him at the range to hold while I fetch another box of shells.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But the problem is, unless you register every gun to an owner and keep a record of that, you can't enforce this.
And folks are NOT wanting a permanent record of who has what guns.
They are not supposed to be doing that...although while an actual database gun registry is outlawed, I
Re: (Score:3)
Defense: "Sam, did Frank ever mention anything to you about that Glock he used to have?"
Sam: "Yeah, he said someone stole it out of his car a while back. I never saw him with it since."
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this:
1. Require that all gun owners have a license to own guns, issued by a (non-governmental) entity endowed with this specific responsibility (the NRA, for instance).
2. Require that to renew that license, a background check needs to be passed every three years.
3. Require that when selling a gun to anyone you need to check whether they have a valid license.
This is how we deal with airsoft guns in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the "mandatory" part is where you run into trouble. It would not take a legal contortionist to argue that it would be mass confiscation without due process, which is prohibited under the bill of rights.
Re: (Score:3)
People who don't understand what UBC would entail (almost everyone who hasn't had it explained to them) is for it. Ask them if they're in favor of a national registry of all private firearms and see what they say. Why? Because a national registry is the only way to make a UBC enforceable, but people don't think it through when asked about a UBC.
Why do you think a national registry is the only way to make UBC work? Every time someone buys a gun, it's sent to match against a database of criminal records. If it's clean, the request isn't kept or logged. If there's a match, flag and log the request. The only kind of list you would have is of people who tried to buy guns but couldn't (very useful to have in my book, and any denial in my opinion should be followed up with a friendly police visit).
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Informative)
The only kind of list you would have is of people who tried to buy guns but couldn't (very useful to have in my book, and any denial in my opinion should be followed up with a friendly police visit).
Except that a statistically insignificant number of denials under the current system are investigated, and an even smaller percentage are actually prosecuted.
From https://www.gao.gov/assets/700... [gao.gov]
For fiscal year 2017, there were about 8.6 million NICS transactions done via the FBI system (some states have their own). Of those, 112 thousand were denied. Of those not quite 13 thousand were investigated by field agents, and of those the USAG office prosecuted TWELVE people. So approximately 1% investigated, and of the investigated .001% were actually prosecuted.
Re: (Score:3)
What difference under your system is there from what we have today when two people can trade cash for a firearm with a handshake...
Personally, I CYA and either write out a bill of sale or get their DL information, assuming I don't know the buyer personally. Especially for the firearms that I sold privately that were either purchased by me or the private seller got my information when purchasing from them. But if there was a mechanism that allowed me to do a background check on a private sale I would do so.
Re:Executives? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted for truth:
People who don't understand what UBC would entail (almost everyone who hasn't had it explained to them) is for it. Ask them if they're in favor of a national registry of all private firearms and see what they say. Why? Because a national registry is the only way to make a UBC enforceable, but people don't think it through when asked about a UBC.
Here's an idea: If we incarcerate someone we can't trust with dangerous objects, why not KEEP them off the streets until we can deem them trustworthy? Why release people who we believe will do harm if they are able to? These are the people a background check would flag.
I recall a compromise offered for the "gun show loophole" offered to lawmakers by, again as I recall, the Second Amendment Foundation. They proposed that everyone that entered a gun show would be required to pass a background check. This means everyone in the building would have passed a background check so every sale that happened there, be it for firearms or hotdogs, would be between people that were deemed by law to be lawful possessors of a firearm.
The lawmakers refused the offer.
They just proved that they don't want people to pass a background check, they want a registry of who owns what weapons.
I'll ask people what purpose a gun registry serves other than to set people up for future confiscation. One answer I got to this was so that stolen weapons could be returned to their rightful owner. Is that the best answer they got? I remember having my bike stolen at university. I filed a report with the make, model, and serial number. And I got my bike back, pretty well beaten up, but I got it back and it was still reparable. Now, imagine someone had a firearm stolen. Can't they simply ask the owner that reports it stolen for make, model, and serial number to track it down? Of course not, because that's not the intent of the registry. They want a registry to take people's guns.
If they don't want a unified registry of all guns then why refuse universal background check proposals from civil rights organizations? They had a law proposed to them that met their stated needs. The refused this, at the expense of having no gun control bill to reduce crime that had a high chance of passing into law. They did this because their intent was not to reduce crime or increase public safety. They refused this offer because they want to take people's guns.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, there is no way the NRA or the people who run gunshows would accept such a restriction, so if it was rejected it would have been a pretty broad rejection.
Besides, is there ANY evidence a 'registry' is for confiscation? Any at all? Besides telepathy that is. I hear this a lot, but I have yet to see anything to back i
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen United gave those peeps equal standing to you and me in the political arena.
Don't be shading their right to freedom of expression.
Everybody Is Against 'Gun Violence'! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's over "Gun Control" where the reasonable debate happens.
The Left, ever the great manipulators of language, realized they had lost traction advocating "Gun Control," and are now rolling with "Gun Violence" as their fallback position.
The words have changed, but their loathing of the 2nd Amendment remains intact and unwavering.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I infer that you don't see it that way, or maybe you don't care about gun violence, or maybe you just like your Lef
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Everybody Is Against 'Gun Violence'! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, but these people aren't worried about owning guns (to defend themselves from ...whoever), because they have so much money to defend themselves with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But Tech Executives do have one advantage... they speak the same language as Congresscritters... MONEY.
Re: (Score:2)
Being that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission means that corporations can make political payments under the first amendment as free speech.
So they have a lot of money to influence a lot of politicians. Their opinion may not necessarily be more correct or valid, it will have more influence and weight on action.
Also being that executives are backing something it will often mean there will be less fighting to block it.
Such as environmental regulations where companies will find ways to block the l
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously tech Executives are so full of themselves. Just because you got lucky with a major expansion in tech doesn't make your opinion more valid than anyone else's.
Afaik there is a majority in favor of stricter gun laws, one hypothesis as to why it's not happening is because of money. For chief executives (who have and control a lot of money) to make a joint statement rather than offering direct campaign contributions seems to me like good business sense.
We must do something... (Score:4, Insightful)
... this is something, therefore we must do it!
Meanwhile, few know that the while the recent Texas shooter did fail a background check (and wasn't prosecuted under current law), he illegally purchased his firearm from someone who was illegally manufacturing them on the side.
Multiple laws were broken, so clearly the answer is more laws which will go without being enforced on those who seek to do harm against others.
Meanwhile, law abiding persons can still go buy a Ghost Gunner 2 and manufacture the 'gun' part of a firearm legally, provided they don't do so with the intent to sell.
I'm still waiting to hear which specific law(s) should be passed, how they would work better than existing laws on the books, and how/why they would be enforced any better than existing laws.
Re:We must do something... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another way of saying that is multiple laws were not being enforced. This guy failed his background check but had no problem finding a guy running a business helping people get around the law. I suspect there are some blind eyes being turned here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm still waiting to hear which specific law(s) should be passed, how they would work better than existing laws on the books, and how/why they would be enforced any better than existing laws.
As infants, humans are helpless and need protection from some kind of parental figure. Some people never grow out of that need. (I think Sigmund Freud probably figured that out.) So they cast the government in the role of parent and give it the job of "keeping us safe." "Just make us feel safe. We don't know how, just do it."
Meanwhile, "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed". [wikiquote.org]
I have also come to the opinion that politicians don't want to solve problems, they just want to prom
Re: (Score:2)
Make... what? They are trying to pass new laws, and rather unsuccessfully at that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Murder is against the law. The penalties for theft are less than murder. If you're intent on killing someone, the penalty for theft is not a problem, so steal the gun from someone who has one or buy one from a criminal where the law is ignored. Not sure who might have one? Park near a gun range and follow someone home.
All the other laws anyone has proposed won't stop this basic reality.
If you wan't to fix violence, you need to fix the mind, heart, and soul of the person who is seeking to be violent. No
They should look in the mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
Naah naah... it's all the guns fault.
Why (Score:2)
I would ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, a bunch of citizens toting AR-15s are totally going to repel the PLA.
Re:I would ask (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
an armed populace that's willing to die for their freedom or their cause.
That, they would.
. I'm sure the PLA would much rather fight against people throwing rocks than they would against people slinging lead.
Not necessarily. It would give them a plausible excuse to utterly annihilate the populace along with its subset of weenies toting small arms.
Re:I would ask (Score:5, Interesting)
When did attitude and tut-tutty snark become a valid argument? I get that you're probably part of the "you go girl" twitter generation and think attitude wins arguments, but it doesn't.
You "turr hurr, you won't beat the army with an AR15, turr hurr" people are so silly. Do you think China is going to use nukes? Carpet bombing? In a hypothetical (though ridiculous, it will never happen) US scenario do you imagine "the army" just dropping nukes on everyone?
Sure, sometimes depending on the foe and the war an armed populace will lose, but other times they can with through attrition. How do you think Germany would have fared in France had enough French given a shit and been well armed? 'But their tanks!" lol.
Why, just look at how Russia overwhelmed Afghanistan and totally won their conflict, right?
The only gun grabber gambit dumber than "yer guns won't help against nukes lolololo" is "the second amendment was put in place to grant our military the right to arm itself, because who wants an unarmed military amirite?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I would ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Look how well your strategy worked out for the rebels in Syria.
Re:I would ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Hong Kongers if theyâ(TM)d like the right to bear arms. We donâ(TM)t have guns in the US because the world is a safe fuzzy place. Even douche bag slashdot disables anon commenting now. What a brave new world weâ(TM)re becoming.
So what if they had Glocks and AR-15s? A fat lot of good that would do them against PLA special forces backed up by armour, attack helicopters, strike fighters, artillery and naval gun and missile fire. The idea that when Sith Lord Obama comes with his legions of ZOG stormtroopers and Deep State mercenaries to take away your guns, that a firing line of patriots with Glocks and AR-15 would triumph against a modern army is laughable. The first thing your firing line of patriots would hear would be the sharp growl of the 30mm Gatling guns as several A-10 attack aircraft dive down on them from a few thousand feet. The ones that survived that would be run over and ground to pulp under the tracks of A1 tanks and the ones that survived that would be mopped up by Bradleys and the infantry that accompanies the armour. This is why forces like the Taliban plant roadside IED's and launch sneak attacks on soft targets. It's the only way they can win, by bleeding the enemy from a thousand pinpricks in a thousand little weak spots until the families on the home front grow tired of the steady stream of young boys in body bags who had to die because some walrus moustached fanatic has a Captain Ahab complex about the Middle East. If the Taliban went up against the US army full frontal they'd get wiped out. The protesters in Hong Kong are employing the only tactic that is realistically feasible for them, unarmed resistance which Beijing is loathe to crack down on with maximum armed force because it would embarrass them internationally (think, Tiananmen Square) and serve as an excuse for Trump to impose more sanctions.
Re:I would ask (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to think the US military would be on the side of those trying to disarm the population. I assure you the overwhelming majority would not be. Or the police. How many of them do you think will be going door-to-door to confiscate the 300 million firearms in this country? You first.
It's also hilarious that those who believe Trump is Hitler want him to disarm the population.
Re:I would ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I absolutely assure you. Members of the US military swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and those I know take that very seriously. You also underestimate the size of that military compared to millions of armed citizens who will not be willingly disarmed.
If the guy who makes denim pants thinks it's OK (Score:2)
Then it must be!
Re: (Score:2)
Busy at the moment (Score:2)
They're too busy trying to ban fruit flavored vaping liquids because 6 people recently died from vaping
Re: (Score:2)
The People vote for laws, and the government votes for money, but each votes with what the other wants. Once the vaping industry begins bribing, I mean lobbying, government officials, the concern for human life will end just as it did with cigarettes.
HA (Score:4, Insightful)
145 self-righteous wealthy A-holes can go F themselves.
Defense against people like these (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2nd Amendment was specifically added to allow for the people of this country to defend ourselves specifically from politicians and policies like these. Just because 145 executives out of the roughly 30,000,000 corporations in America say it, it really doesn't mean much.
Interesting - most CEOs on the list are from CA (Score:2)
Funny (not funny) - most of the CEOs on that list are from California - the most gun grabbing state in the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
These gun grabbing execs are typically standing next to armed security.
This is a good example of why 2A is important (Score:5, Informative)
I demand... (Score:2)
Wonderful idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Wonderful idea! (Score:3)
I believe most people voted for President Trump because he was not a Clinton (or a Bush).
90% of Americans did too (Score:3)
Gun control is a losing issue. Please, just drop it. The people opposed to gun control will support _anyone_ who says they'll block it. They're single issue voters. They will cheerfully let the establishment run roughshod over every other right to protect the 2nd amendment.
Meanwhile the people in favor of gun control have a myriad of other issues they care more about. Healthcare, the economy, labor laws, abortion rights, etc, etc.
I hate Bill Clinton with a passion. His right wing politics wrecked the country by shifting the Overton window right into crazy town. But he was right about one thing, gun control is a losing issue. A few thousand will die in mass shootings this year. 35,000 will die of treatable illness due to lack of healthcare. Not along ago a women _with_ insurance died because she had a blood clot and they screwed up the paper work and wouldn't treat her until it was sorted out. There's more important things to do here.
Just drop it.
F'ing Hypocrites! (Score:2)
I'd be willing to bet most if not all of these CEOs employ PRIVATE ARMED security guards to safeguard their property and families.....
I'd also be willing to bet if you asked the American people most would also want these types of services outlawed. If that were ever to happen I think all these people would change their "gun control" opinions in rather short order.
Republicans have been trying to pass BG check bill (Score:2, Informative)
...but the democrats in congress filibustered it to prevent a vote because it had a majority and would have passed. Democrats don't want a solution to gun violence. They want to ban guns.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
There are two major weakness in our current background check system. 1) many states, localities, and agencies do not report felons to the list. 2) prohibited persons that illegally attempt to buy a gun are not prosecuted. This bill addresses these weaknesses.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they objected to the limitations on law enforcement operations contained in that bill.
Hmm, ok.. so ... WHAT ELSE? (Score:3)
What really bugs me about this, as well as most "solutions" to problems, online arguments, "news" stories, etc. boils down to this:
These are complex problems - PLEASE stop acting like there is one and only one solution.
Gun violence is a problem. Stop looking for THE answer, and start addressing it as a complex problem with a multi-faceted solution.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. True. Also true, if citizens were not allowed to own any guns at all, gun violence would go down. But that isn't a good solution. Because the reason people are committing violence needs to be addressed. If not with guns, then with knives. But the simple nature of gun violence, guns are part of the problem. But there are lots of OTHER parts as well, and simply eliminating them won't change the mentality that some people have that they can kill other people to take out their rage or deranged ideas. But that is a much harder problem to solve, and nobody is willing to admit that. And the NRA is so single-minded that they've actually been able to get laws passed to prohibit researching gun violence. That is sick in many ways - in intent, and in the fact that special interest groups are so in bed with our government that they were able to do that. [[[ another HUGE problem ]]]
As a society, we have abandoned all rational thought, and we've devolved into "us vs them". You can't even approach certain topics without certain groups going on full-on defense. Until we are able to come together to even discuss tough topics, there is no solution.
Ask Chicago (Score:4, Insightful)
Strict gun control yet has the equivalent of a mass shooting every day [suntimes.com].
And far more assaults and murders occur in the US without firearms than with.
So let's fix the problem and not a symptom. Bad people are the problem. We need to stop them and stop more from being created.
Re:The Capitalistic Party ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I smell a shibboleth...
Because you'd know there are 300-500 billion firearms in private hands right now... how do you prove you either a) owned the firearm prior to the requirement of UBC, or b) that the firearm you acquired after UBC? At present, there is no federal registry, and the BATFE isn't permitted to retain records of background checks for very long, so if you lose your receipt... instant criminal?
I'm sorry you don't like due process, or hearing a valid argument against your view.
And apples on the tree and apple pie are exactly the same thing!
Do you consider the grand jury process 'due process'... where only one side is allowed to present evidence and where it is often said that a skilled prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich? That is what most of these red flag proposals are. Seize now, litigate it later. Lemme guess... you are ok with the terror watch list and no fly lists as well?
It sounds good, stripping someone of their rights because they seem off/weird... but what happens when that gets turned into a weapon? What stops an estranged spouse from filing a false report of threats from them... just to make sure they are defenseless for when/if the complaining spouse decides to 'get even'? Oh right... no one ever lies to police or makes false reports.
Re: (Score:2)
I smell a shibboleth...
Because you'd know there are 300-500 billion firearms in private hands right now... how do you prove you either a) owned the firearm prior to the requirement of UBC, or b) that the firearm you acquired after UBC? At present, there is no federal registry, and the BATFE isn't permitted to retain records of background checks for very long, so if you lose your receipt... instant criminal?
I'm sorry you don't like due process, or hearing a valid argument against your view.
And apples on the tree and apple pie are exactly the same thing!
Do you consider the grand jury process 'due process'... where only one side is allowed to present evidence and where it is often said that a skilled prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich? That is what most of these red flag proposals are. Seize now, litigate it later. Lemme guess... you are ok with the terror watch list and no fly lists as well?
It sounds good, stripping someone of their rights because they seem off/weird... but what happens when that gets turned into a weapon? What stops an estranged spouse from filing a false report of threats from them... just to make sure they are defenseless for when/if the complaining spouse decides to 'get even'? Oh right... no one ever lies to police or makes false reports.
Really? 300-500 billion ???
Re:The Capitalistic Party ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, re-edited that sentence, originally referenced 300-500 million rounds and several billion rounds of ammo, but trimmed it down and left the wrong units in place.
The underlying point still stands, we've a metric f-ton of firearms in this country and too often the politicians think if they pass laws affecting sales of new ones, the existing ones just won't matter.
I live in state which recently had a rather onerous gun control law to into effect, and as a result I will not be buying anything more in this state... I will however switch completely to building my own for my own use, which is perfectly legal.
Once again the politicians don't understand what they are trying to control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds like a good, simple idea at first... until you expand it to other groups. Black men make up about 7% of the population of this country, but are statistically responsible for something like 50% of all homicides. Should we be locking up all black men (or just denying them their second amendment rights) until we know if they individually are a threat? Of course not.
One aspect of our free country is we do not criminalize people for things they haven't done, and this even applies to mass shooters who
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the same people who want mental health red flag laws are the same ones who say that wanting to own a gun is a mental illness.
Re: (Score:3)
I am against UBC. I am against red flag laws.
A right is not a right if you have to ask permission to exercise it. An abusee should never have to ask the abuser to protect themselves from the abuser.
And a lot of red flag laws "due process" the person being accused is not present to defend themselves. So not much of due process.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wanna bet, most of these have armored limos, gated houses, armed security.
You want to really cut down on "gun violence"?
KEEP EM IN PRISON! Make prisons a place you DO NOT want to be, like the
movie "Cool Hand Luke". Get em out working on chain gangs.
The other thing is this nation turned its back on morality, good manners, morals and
everything else. Kids "run wild" these days (some of their parents do to!).
No discipline, and they turn into street thugs!
Your arguments are vacuous, and straw man in nature.
Punishment for crimes is not an effective motivator for deterrence.
The morality of the nation is not a solid indicator and predictor of gun violence.
For a much stronger cause/effect relationship, look at gun ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
The morality of the nation is not a solid indicator and predictor of gun violence.
For a much stronger cause/effect relationship, look at gun ownership.
Well hold on, people have owned guns in the US since it's inception, but these mass shooting sprees have only really started happening with any regularity in the last 25 years. Powerful guns were around before that.
It ain't due to the Ar-15, that's really not a deadlier weapon than others, not as the media paints it ("fully semi-automatic" durr ) and not a common denominator in mass shootings.
So what else changed?
We took lead out of the gasoline and paint.
What else is driving people to such a frenzied, ang
Re: (Score:3)
What else is driving people to such a frenzied, angered state?
Feeling powerless with no recourse or ability to change/fix anything and blaming an outgroup.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution is a bigger reason.
article summarized (Score:5, Insightful)
Article summarized:
Coterie of inbred aristocrats demand immediate jackbooted government action to disarm the plebs.
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please name a mass shooting or two which would have been prevented by these new proposed laws.
I'll start... the Texas shooting wouldn't have, as not only did no one prosecute the shooter for failing the background check in the first place, he also purchased his firearm illegally from someone who was illegally making firearms to sell. Making them for personal use without the intent to sell is legal (and wouldn't change with this law), but you still have a person willing to break the law 2x... how would these new laws stop that?
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.
And there's already mandated gun background checks on all commercial gun sales.
I believe to date, there's not been one of these 'mass' shootings that came from individual private sales (in states where they are allowed).
That's the problem with most of these anti-gun laws being proposed...they do NOTHING to address or would have prevented any of these public shootings.
All they will do is make things more difficult for the overwhelming majority of US citizen responsible gun owners.
It does nothing to stop the criminals.....and right now, how about trying to just enforce the laws we currently have on the books, rather than burden innocent US citizens with more regulation and $$ burden that is ineffective in preventing the things they are wanting to prevent.
And if they DO want to ban the private sale of guns between individuals (funny, what other private property sales is regulated in such a manner?)....then they need to write this VERY carefully.
First, it should be written as it is with current commercial sales background checks, in that these transactions should be banned from becoming part of a database or system that registers and tracks all guns owned by private citizens.
Next, the govt should cover any costs for the FFL. Poor people need guns too, often a lot more than other folks for home protection, and any fees added on by these laws, should be covered by the govt trying to put this extra burden onto the common citizen.
You're not supposed to be able to 'tax' or 'fee' a right.
And for red flag laws.
I get it...I truly get the sentiment.
And I think for most regular people, you can spot someone that is definitely mentally unbalanced and should likely not possess weapons, since they are a danger to themselves and others.
However, in a LEGAL sense, how do we categorize this, have legal tests, AND not run the risk of depriving someone of their rights without due process.
And I would also add...without undo costs!!
The trouble with most of the red flag laws enacted is, the person is 'guilty until proven innocent'. And int he meantime, they may be without their property and protection for extended periods of time AND great legal cost.
And there are no repercussions for those making false claims against someone.
I mean, it is not unheard of for a jilted lover to accuse their mate of something very wrong. I mean it isn't unheard of for women to claim rape or domestic abuse falsely against a guy, because they are pissed off in a divorce or other matter, right?
And vice-versa guys calling child services and the like on their former mates.
I"m sure no neighbor has falsely called the cops on another neighbor they didn't like or were mad at.
Well in the case of Red Flag laws, anyone can file a claim, or go into a court secretly without the defendant there and make any claims they want which could very likely lead to surprise sudden conficastion by force.
This surprise confiscations has large ramifications for injury and death.
And if this is a false red flag...then the innocent defendant is required to jump through many hoops, and pay $$$ legal fees in hope of proving their innocence.
And yet the person filing the claim falsely, gets no penalty at all....and the defendant may not ever even be able to face their accuser.
This is not a principal of law that our country was founded upon.
Again, I under stand the sentiment of RF laws, I do....and I want to get wea
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, I under stand the sentiment of RF laws, I do....and I want to get weapons out of the hands of the unstable, but this has to be approached VERY carefully, and with due process and without added expenses to the plaintiff who might be perfectly fine, falsely accused, but cannot afford the legal fees and time required to disprove the initial seeming assumption of guilt to begin with .
I'm with you here.
It seems like we're trying to reinvent the old involuntary commitment laws and doing it poorly. It seems pretty clear those laws had some utility even though they were also flawed. As it stands the biggest issue I have with RF laws is the initial 'secret' hearing where the infringement is decided without any representation for the accused. That's wrong. If we could figure out a way to fix that, I could possibly get on board.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, I under stand the sentiment of RF laws, I do....and I want to get weapons out of the hands of the unstable, but this has to be approached VERY carefully, and with due process and without added expenses to the plaintiff who might be perfectly fine, falsely accused, but cannot afford the legal fees and time required to disprove the initial seeming assumption of guilt to begin with .
When a person is employed working with classified material, they get a background check. Seems a bit odd to wait until the crime is committed to think it maybe wasn't a good idea to hand them top secret information.
I have zero issues with a complete background check. Others may, and they might have a reason. Anyhow, there is actually something a little more important and effective than restricting sales.
Why are people snapping and killing innocent people? Why are people shooting up their workplaces?
Re: (Score:3)
As someone else on this site pointed out, we live in a country that considers it OK to kill people overseas for money. Is it any surprise that someone mentally ill would consider it OK to kill people for their own selfish reasons? .
And - there! the beginnings of a discussion! There is some merit to the concept that the US is a violent culture. It isn't completely fleshed out now, as many cultures have a history of violence - but in general, I agree.
The only mental illness they have that distinguishes them from society is figuring out which people are OK to kill, and which are not.
Exactly. Now we need to think about how that situation develops.
I don't consider other Americans to be my enemy. I don't have any problem figuring that out. I could be convinced that some folks in other countries with antagonistic tendencies toward the US indeed are enemies. So I consi
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet the person filing the claim falsely, gets no penalty at all....and the defendant may not ever even be able to face their accuser.
Yeah... That is crazy. At the very least the person filing a Red Flag claim should be required to post a bond,
and if the person they claimed against shows the claim to be baseless or defeats the claim, then the claimant should be responsible for repaying the
courts costs, reasonable attorneys fees, compensation for their lost time, And the claimant should be liable for any
additional security cost Or harm that occurs while the person is without firearms due to them being restrained from
their use in protection of themself and their property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Informative)
I think you missed the rest of my post. Did he find someone willing to sell him a commercial produced firearm from a known manufacturer... or did he buy it from someone who was in the illegal business of making firearms for resale without a license? (spoiler, it's the second one).
Would you mind bringing a little clarity to the discussion and specifically define what you mean by an 'assault weapon'? I ask, because many throw out the term and try to paint certain types of firearms as evil/bad/scary/extra deadly... ignoring plenty more which fire the same kind of ammo (and just as fast), or are even more deadly.
Example: The AR-15 is considered an assault weapon by many, yet the Ruger Mini 14 isn't... the main difference between them is aesthetic, as one often is black and plastic/metal, while the other is wood... and both shoot the exact same 223 rounds.
It is tragic that these things happen, though any chance that shooting also happened (even in part) in a gun free zone? It's uncanny how often gun free zones are involved, sometimes as if the shooter knows they won't face armed resistance, other times it does appear to be random, like the Texas shooting you and I referenced.
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know what an "assault weapon" is? I'll tell you: It's a made-up term to use language to conflate "assault rifle" to "assault weapon" because the uninformed don't realize that the legal definition of an "assault rifle" is literally a weapon that is capable of select-fire mode, which puts it into the category of an 'automatic' weapon, which, if manufactured after 1986, is ILLEGAL to possess without some serious red tape and $$. Now, if you intentionally confuse people so that they equate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" or "automatic weapon", you're one step closer to banning guns altogether.
You know what the next step after that is? Authoritarianism, the favorite hangout of the left, because their ideas are so good, they have to be enforced at the barrel of an automatic weapon.
Depending on who you talk to, after guns are banned, then will go red meat, fatty foods, unprotected heterosexual sex, the right to practice your preferred religion unless it's Islam, smoking, the right to raid the fridge at night, electricity, air conditioning, jet planes, private ownership of property, the right to an attorney, fair trials, and the ability to speak out without fear of being killed by your own government.
Personally, I just have to look at a history book and do a little google search to figure out that places like Germany, Russia, China, and even Venezuela have already proven the authoritarian theory correct. 100 Million deaths due to "sensible gun control" in the last century alone should give anyone pause.
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:5, Informative)
I wish you could see the sweet sweet irony of what you just did.
I asked for someone to name a shooting which these laws would have prevented, even noting one which some hold up (and which you did, despite evidence to the contrary), but that bypassed the proposed laws... then you scoff at the idea that armed resistance could be 'prevented or even mitigated by armed bystanders'
Let's just say in Texas, shall we? Do you know the name Stephen Willeford? He was asleep when some a-hole started shooting in the Sutherland Springs church (with an 'assault-style rifle'). His daughter woke him up to the sound of gunfire, at which point he grabbed his own AR-15 and shot the shooter twice, who then dropped his own rifle and fled.
Still not enough? Same year, same state: https://www.dallasnews.com/new... [dallasnews.com]
You said ZERO, I named two.
Want a third? Up in Oregon an a-hole went into a mall with an stolen AR-15 rifle and was confronted by someone who was legally carrying, which is believed to have helped end the incident earlier, without firing a shot: https://www.kgw.com/video/news... [kgw.com]
It's long become apparent that anyone who references 'assault-style rifles' doesn't know what they are talking about. It's ok, some of us do and are happy to keep trying to educate you.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Both the perp and the armed citizen were using semi-automatic rifles. The armed citizen was formerly an NRA firearms instructor.
Re:Moscow Mitch sez... (Score:4, Insightful)
Assault Weapon is a Synonym for the word gun -- right now it means X, but this is a category which is designed to evolve and grow more and more expansive over time. People who assert that assault weapons should be banned are actually people that want to ban all guns outside the hands of Law Enforcement; with the possibility of still allowing a few for hunting purposes based on arbitrary categories -- probably just single-shot rifles and shotguns that require manual steps to eject, reload, and prepare each shot, with no scope or other features to support targeting at long-range.