[paddler]

What do folks think about the Senate framework? No national Red Flag legislation, no requirement for states to implement them, slightly expanded background checks (probably ineffective), no raising the age limit to 21, no ban, etc. Pretty toothless, IMO.

There was a post on another thread about the 9th Circuit Court ruling that a law raising the age limit to 21 to buy a semiautomatic rifle violated the 2nd Amendment and was unconstitutional. The poster implied that the May 11, 2022 ruling was significant because it came from a court known to be "liberal". However, as Paul Harvey used to say, there is "the rest of the story". The ruling wasn't from the entire court, but a panel of three judges. The two who ruled the law unconstitutional were Trump appointees, so Federalist Society-apporived, far right judges just like the rest of his appointees. The dissenting opinion was from a Clinton appointee. No surprise.

Also, in response to the Buffalo shooting, New York passed a package of bills, one of which requires a gun license to buy a semiautomatic, and you can't get a license until you're 21. Also, in order to get a license you must meet several requirements, one of which is having a "legally recognized" reason for wanting to possess a firearm. Seems reasonable to me.

I predicted that no effective gun safety measures would come out of Congress following the recent spate of mass murders. So far they look to be on track.

 

[taxidermist]

It doesn't matter if a weapon is a semi, fully automatic, bolt, pump, break action, lever action, revolver, pistol, single shot, etc. The weapon doesn't harm/kill people, people harm/kill people.

What would be next on the "ban list", 3-D printers? Because one could make a ghost gun with it. Will you have to have a "special permit", or show a need to own a metal fabricating lathe because a weapon can be manufactured with one? Will they "ban" vehicles, because one can use that for mass human harm/death?

I could go on, but the point is mute and I'm sure you understand where this would be going. Once a bill/law is passed, it's more difficult to have it removed from the books. Be careful how far and what you open your door to. Once inside?????

There are "Nut Cases" now, has, and always will be. Don't place a chokehold on a law abiding citizen because of the actions of a few. One reason Japan didn't invade the US after the Pearl Harbor attack, was because they new the citizens of this great country were armed to the teeth and it was the worlds largest armed force. Yes....the "sleeping giant would have been awaken" with a very bad attitude.

 

[paddler]

The question was what do you think about the proposed Senate package? I don't think it will do anything.

We've all heard all of your arguments before, ad nauseum. Slippery slope, yada, yada yada. NRA playbook, not working....

 

[taxidermist]

So, what do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US? Or do you think 101 mass shootings here, vs France, in second place with 8, vs a third place Germany with 5 is okay? We've all heard all this before, slippery slope, yada, yada yada. NRA playbook, not working....

Leave it alone!! No change is necessary. If one wants weapon restrictions/gun control, move the hell out of the USA to a country that has these laws in place where you can "feal safe".

 

[callofthewild2]

pretty sure my opinion on what to do about gun violence will not be a popular one.

 

[CPAjeff]

Paddler - anyone who states an opinion, that doesn't align with yours, will obviously be wrong. I know it'll be hard, based on your track record, but let's try to keep this thread from spiraling down into a flaming pile of crap.

 

[Catherder]

It sounds like my opinion will pizz off everyone responding, but I like it. It is a start. No, it won't magically fix everything, but neither will any other single fix argued about here and elsewhere on endless threads and discussions.

It also isn't a done deal and I will believe it only when I see a bill signed on the presidents desk.

 

[paddler]

It sounds like my opinion will pizz off everyone responding, but I like it. It is a start. No, it won't magically fix everything, but neither will any other single fix argued about here and elsewhere on endless threads and discussions.

It also isn't a done deal and I will believe it only when I see a bill signed on the presidents desk.

Makes sense. Many a slip between cup and lip. We'll see what, if anything, actually is signed into law.

I think the "incentive" to states meant to encourage Red Flag laws will have little to no impact, as states who haven't developed them likely won't. Also, the expanded background checks for 18-21yo buyers probably won't go far enough, as many of the perpetrators fly under the radar until it's too late. Interesting that many of the more powerful measures are off the table entirely.

Doing nothing, as suggested above, guarantees more of the same. Doing little guarantees a little bit less of the same.

 

[Vanilla]

We already know that you want to violate constitutional rights paddler. And anything short of that won’t appease you. Some people like the constitution, some don’t. You can try and minimize my reference to the 9th Cir decision last month, but guess what? It’s still the cutest trolling law in all of the 9th Cir and the law requiring someone to be 21 to buy a long gun in California is still struck down as unconstitutional. It will remain that way unless it is overturned. So take veiled shots all you want, you’re still wrong.

I am actually encouraged by this news. Not necessarily that I like the final result, but because our elected officials (at least these ones) are showing an ability to come together and discuss things that are important and realize it is not an “all or nothing” provision like the OP and so many others around the country demand.

Our country was founded on the principle of compromise. If our founding fathers subscribed to the political tribalism of today, we would not be a nation today. Make no mistake, their compromise was not weakness. These were powerful, influential, strong-headed, opinionated men. But for the good of the country, they put their pride and demands aside and formed a “more perfect Union.”

These 20 senators are showing that can still happen, and regardless of the result, it leaves me encouraged that statesmen/women still exist. I’m also more loyal to the country than a political party too, so call me old fashion.

 

[Jedidiah]

People use firearms to defend themselves from death or injury at least 10 times as much as the amount harmed or killed by firearms each year. Gun bans and gun control beyond what exists now CAUSES more death and injury, look at the repealed DC and Chicago gun bans, look at the increase in the rates of violent crime in the UK after the gun bans there, look at the absolutely insane rate of sexual assault in Australia. Guns save lives and it's not a complicated problem, there isn't some magical rate or relationship between the amount of casualties caused by guns to the amount saved by guns, it's over 10 times the rate in the RIGHT direction and it only gets worse if you screw around with it.

But no one's going to convince you, because you're paddler. If MSNBC told you the sky was green you would be telling us we all need to wear yellow sunglasses until we agree.

 

[paddler]

I merely corrected the record. The implication was that a liberal majority of the 9th Circuit Court ruled the California law unconstitutional. To quote:

All that said, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (yes, THAT 9th Circuit in the liberal mecca of the country) just ruled on May 11th of this year that California's law requiring someone to be 21 years old to purchase a semi-automatic centerfire rifle is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So while I've tried to tell one certain member for years his proposal would violate the constitution, now we have a federal appellate case to show for it. (It's almost like a constitutional law scholar knows more about the constitution than some who is not. Weird...huh?) So while that type of a law sounds all good, if it violates the constitution, it violates the constitution.

I accepted that post at face value, as many others probably did. But I wondered why New York would pass a law after that May 11th decision that also raised the age limit. So I looked up the decision, and discovered that it wasn't handed down by the entire court, but a right-wing majority three-judge panel. Thus, the implication was inaccurate, and the issue of constitutionality appears to be unresolved as of this writing.

It's also a very important issue, as raising the age to purchase semiautomatic weapons could actually help decrease mass murders, and many think it reasonable. But it appears to be off the table for the bipartisan panel. Sad.

 

[Jedidiah]

No, gun control is a complete non-issue. The issue is with mental health, full stop.

So, first point: when you increase gun control past the current point it hurts considerably more people than it helps. You can care about mass shootings killing people and that's fine but if you make laws that reduce those shootings to zero (saving the 300 or so lives a year that they take) but those same laws make it impossible for 200,000+ people to defend themselves from attackers and over 30,000 of those people die, you clearly have made the wrong choice.

Second point: the mental health and socio-economic factors that cause violent crime don't go away when access to guns go away. Restricting guns doesn't make that violent crime go down, it makes it go up. We have 30 years of recent proof of that.

The currently proposed bill gives states the option to enact red flag laws if they want, we'll see if that's good for the states that choose to do it, but previous experience says probably not. The bill would also give a lot of money to states for mental health and education, which is the perfect thing for the problem.

Now this isn't to say I wouldn't have defended my guns (and high capacity magazines) with my life before knowing the ratio of good gun use to bad, you could show me mass shooting and gun homicide victim rates up to equal of the number of people saved by guns and that would still be the case. These numbers are for people more sensitive than me.

 

[caddis8]

My .02- (not worth a nickle). Admittedly, I'm not an AR guy. But just because I'm not an AR guy doesn't mean that just because I don't want one or have use for one that another person can't have it.

In order to have a fully automatic machine gun one has to either be a FFL, or have an SOT license. Some people call it a Class 3 (incorrectly). Fully automatic guns are legal to certain people. Do something similar (not exactly)

I would propose something like a Class 2 permit to buy certain classes of firearms (semi-automatic firearms over .22 caliber that can hold more than 15 rounds in a magazine- an AR). This permit should require training, a mental evaluation, and a waiting period, credit check, and a few other things (still chewing on it). Once one gets it, then it is good to purchase items without a waiting period. Show the card, buy the firearm. If a person is convicted of a violent crime, card revoked. If a DUI is given, card revoked. I'm not sure about mental health diagnoses- because someone can have clinical depression and still be a responsible gun owner. Red flag laws targeting certain medical conditions will drive people who need help but want to keep their guns away from getting help- and therefor more apt to commit crimes.

The 2nd ammendment is a very big deal. It is a slippery slope- because constitutional rights matter- all of them. Even the ones we disagree with. Taking an entire class of guns away isn't acceptable. However, I think that something can and probably should be done. We can't take evil away. People kill people, guns don't. But giving guns to people who shouldn't have a gun isn't a great solution either.

 

[Jedidiah]

Dude, mass shooting deaths from AR-15s are less than 300 people in the last 20 years. 300 deaths out of about 30,000 deaths per year including homicide, suicide, and accidents. 600,000 gun deaths vs 300 and guns prevented violence about 4.5 million times in that same period. This focus on AR-15s is ridiculous.

 

[caddis8]

Dude, mass shooting deaths from AR-15s are less than 300 people in the last 20 years. 300 deaths out of about 30,000 deaths per year including homicide, suicide, and accidents. 600,000 gun deaths vs 300 and guns prevented violence about 4.5 million times in that same period. This focus on AR-15s is ridiculous.

I'm not sure that your information is correct, but that's ok. Per the FBI (and only counting 2000-2018) there have been 247 mass shooting events. (Defined as 4 or more people killed). 884 killed and 1546 wounded. That has increased since then. That is a lot less than total gun violence deaths.

Nut jobs that want to kill people shouldn't get guns easily. People who are responsible shouldn't have to have access to guns restricted. Both are true.

Closing loopholes for background checks at gun shows I think it a no brainer. I'm not for background checks for when a gun is given as a gift/inheritence between direct family members. I also believe there should be incentives given for having a fireproof safe or something to safely store guns in a home.

We have glamorized killing people through movies and entertainment.

My brother was directly involved with the shooting in Smithfield when Desirae Turner was shot. She was shot with a .22. The two young men that shot her had absolutely zero regard for her life. It was discussed that video games and other things (porn) had altered their sense of reality. I agree with this to an extent. All that to say that some bad guys will get guns.

 

[Jedidiah]

If there were 884 killed and 1546 wounded total in mass shootings between 2000 and 2018 I doubt very much that even a quarter of those were done via rifle and even less by AR-15s judging by the year over year stats on gun homicides and that would mean it's even less than 300. Gun violence is done by handguns for the vast majority of events but for soooooome reason the result is to go after AR-15s. That reason isn't because anyone thinks banning or restricting AR-15s will reduce gun violence (maybe they think it, but that doesn't make it correct), it's because they want to ban the most popular firearm type without regard to facts.

You will never stop crazy people from harming other people with weapons by taking weapons away. You have to fix those people or remove them from society. You could easily cause more death and injury to happen by restricting good people's access to firearms.

Those kids used an adult's weapon in that crime, that should be a crime for the adult, and that adult should be in prison for a long time.

 

[Vanilla]

Thus, the implication was inaccurate, and the issue of constitutionality appears to be unresolved as of this writing.

Actually, it was entirely accurate. The 9th Circuit ruled on this issue, and California's law was struck down. Circuit Court decisions are only binding in their own circuit, I thought you knew that with as much as you lecture us on the law, constitution and how it works. I'll try to drop down to a 5th grade level next time so you can understand.

FYI- panel decisions are binding, unless they are overturned. Randomly selected 3-judge panels are standard operating procedure. It doesn't matter what president appointed the judge. The judicial system isn't like you, thankfully! But I'm guessing you knew that and are just trying to be dishonest in your analysis again.

Cheer on your team, puddler. I doubt there is a single person on this forum that cares what you have to say anymore.

 

[backcountry]

My .02- (not worth a nickle). Admittedly, I'm not an AR guy. But just because I'm not an AR guy doesn't mean that just because I don't want one or have use for one that another person can't have it.

In order to have a fully automatic machine gun one has to either be a FFL, or have an SOT license. Some people call it a Class 3 (incorrectly). Fully automatic guns are legal to certain people. Do something similar (not exactly)

I would propose something like a Class 2 permit to buy certain classes of firearms (semi-automatic firearms over .22 caliber that can hold more than 15 rounds in a magazine- an AR). This permit should require training, a mental evaluation, and a waiting period, credit check, and a few other things (still chewing on it). Once one gets it, then it is good to purchase items without a waiting period. Show the card, buy the firearm. If a person is convicted of a violent crime, card revoked. If a DUI is given, card revoked. I'm not sure about mental health diagnoses- because someone can have clinical depression and still be a responsible gun owner. Red flag laws targeting certain medical conditions will drive people who need help but want to keep their guns away from getting help- and therefor more apt to commit crimes.

The 2nd ammendment is a very big deal. It is a slippery slope- because constitutional rights matter- all of them. Even the ones we disagree with. Taking an entire class of guns away isn't acceptable. However, I think that something can and probably should be done. We can't take evil away. People kill people, guns don't. But giving guns to people who shouldn't have a gun isn't a great solution either.

This is my general direction. I don't know how to sketch out the details but I would hope to see something along these lines plus meaningful red flag laws.

I don't think the requirements are too tough. Having a couple fresh eyes on individuals seeking semi-automatic weapons could help prevent mass shootings, or at least reduce the casualty rate. Even slowing the attainment down by a week or two could be a major hurdle for these killers who often act semi-impulsively. And I think we could design a policy "net" broad enough to catch the Uvalde shooter without stopping a law abiding citizen from having such a weapon for home defense.

Maybe we'll get there? Seems like the public willingness to work on this is expires in less than a month. We move on so quickly.

And to the broader theme.... it takes a person & a gun to pull off a mass shooting. And semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s provide novices like these killers better opportunity to kill more people in less time. They are the weapon of choice for these young men for a reason. We can't ignore that obvious trend just because most other gun violence is done with a semi-automatic pistol.

 

[paddler]

Sounds like Caddis8 and Backcountry are circling around a proposal similar to what I came up with so many years ago. I don't care too much about the fine details, but coming up with a scheme that keeps these weapons of choice out of the hands of the usual perpetrators is the goal. I have yet to speak with a hunter who objects to the reclassification idea, but perhaps it could be refined a bit.

That wasn't the topic of this thread, however. My question was if the measures under dicussion by the Senate panel will be effective in decreasing mass murders. I'm not optimistic.

 

[MrShane]

If there were 884 killed and 1546 wounded total in mass shootings between 2000 and 2018 I doubt very much that even a quarter of those were done via rifle and even less by AR-15s judging by the year over year stats on gun homicides and that would mean it's even less than 300. Gun violence is done by handguns for the vast majority of events but for soooooome reason the result is to go after AR-15s. That reason isn't because anyone thinks banning or restricting AR-15s will reduce gun violence (maybe they think it, but that doesn't make it correct), it's because they want to ban the most popular firearm type without regard to facts.

You will never stop crazy people from harming other people with weapons by taking weapons away. You have to fix those people or remove them from society. You could easily cause more death and injury to happen by restricting good people's access to firearms.

Those kids used an adult's weapon in that crime, that should be a crime for the adult, and that adult should be in prison for a long time.

I vote for removing them from society.