I don't own a gun but I am for people who are competent to have one. For the life of me I don't understand why anyone needs an assault rifle, its to much for self defense and I doubt you can hunt with it so why have it? When the constitution was written it was a different time and hell everyone had the right to bear arms, but in these days and times is it really necessary? I could see if you lived in a place like Ukraine and the threat of being invaded by Russia you would want one.....or 10 but I dont see the need for them. Congress will whine about the shooting, then there will be silence and then it will happen again......wash, rinse and repeat and not a dam thing will change. Also, is it true if you go to a gun show you can buy a gun and skirt some of the laws that you would face at a gun dealer?
A large-scale expansion of municipal cameras and audio recording equipment (as is seen in London). If you have video evidence of most people leaving the scene of crimes that you can trace forward and backward (like they did with the Boston Marathon bombing using private business recordings), you are going to have a much greater chance of solving murders and other shootings and there will be a greater disincentive to committing those crimes.
I’m not so sure about that. Scalia in Heller recognized that there can be regulation on firearms. It’s possible that even this court would recognize that owning firearms isn’t a completely unrestricted right. In fact there is not such thing as an unrestricted right.
Not skirt some law, but it's a loophole to by-pass federal background checks. Some 80% support closing the loophole (support universal background check) but it has zero chance of becoming law. 80% scream reasonable and it is in this case. It's one of the things that has wide support on all sides. But yet, it hasn't been possible because of our government structure and a general fear of any new federal control. I don't know if you can find another idea around gun control that has a higher level of support so it's really more of an academic discussion that is eventually pointless for any changes. As someone said, if slaughtering 20 elementary kids (Sandy Hook) didn't move the needle, nothing will, at least until the structure of gov changes or the culture over guns and fear of gov control changes.
One more thing that should happen now. Existing Iaws need to be much more heavily enforced with the proper resources.
There is nothing special about gun shows with regard to background checks. Licensed dealers at gun shows follow exactly the same rules as licensed dealers in stores. Private parties at gun shows follow the same rules as private parties at home. There is no gun show loophole.
It's a gathering place to buy guns. Private parties can sell to other private parties without a background check. 80% want to close that loophole.
It's an obvious point, but I think the symbolic significance that "the right to bear arms" has for a large group of Americans, and the way this connects to their definition of civil liberties and freedom, makes it extremely difficult for gun restrictions to be passed. I can't see anything that would convince them to change their stance.
Frustrated Democrats weigh limited options after Buffalo shooting https://thehill.com/news/house/3496330-frustrated-dems-weigh-limited-options-after-buffalo-shooting/
What’s the Bill that senators will not pass that Steve Kerr is talking about? Maybe that’s a start to discuss
There’s 50 senators, right now, who refuse to vote on H.R. 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed,” Kerr said ahead of his team’s playoff game versus the Dallas Mavericks in remarks that went viral. “There’s a reason they won’t vote on it: to hold on to power.” “So I ask you, [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell, I ask all of you senators who refuse to do anything about the violence and school shootings and supermarket shootings … I ask you, are you going to put your own desire for power ahead of the lives of our children and our elderly and our churchgoers?” “When are we going to do something?” Kerr added. “I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families that are out there. … I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough!” Kerr, a longtime gun safety advocate whose father was assassinated in a shooting outside his office in Beirut in 1984, referenced a bill known as the Bipartisan Background Checks Act that would expand federal background checks required for gun purchases.
yes it's hard to have a record when you are kid. how are they going to research their social media accounts? don't have the man power to do that for every applicant.
Background checks are part of the process but not the solution. You need to screen people for mental health as well.
I mean the fact you're calling him a kid and can go out and legally buy a gun is a problem. Raise gun purchase age to 21 and require safety/education class before purchasing. I can get a gun faster and cheaper than I can a PS5.
If we aren't going to outright ban guns, which is how you pretty much minimize this bullshit, there are other things you can do to pretend you semi-care by making it a hell of a lot more difficult to own a gun. If it's an inconvenience, these individuals may think long and hard about going the mass shooting route. My half-assed solution since you won't convince anyone to abolish the 2nd amendment. Rigorous mental health screenings that has you consult with at least one mental health professional. There should be a questionnaire that needs to be prepared by mental health professional organization with the input of several respected peers, prior to visiting with the mental health professional. This expense would need to be paid by applicant. Universal background checks. I guess they may help from time to time. No more private sells between private parties without going through the same process as listed above. If registered owner's gun ends up in someone else's hands that ends up being part of a crime scene, the registered owner will also be subject to monetary and criminal penalties. Yearly renewal for gun owners with a substantial fee (this can go towards a dedicated fund that assists victims of gun violence). Each year they will have to answer the mental health screening questionnaire, but will not be necessary to consult with mental health professional unless something in the questionnaire triggers a required visit. Those are some of the quick things I can come up with. My point is to make it highly inconvenient and expensive to own a gun.
I used to be super pro gun-control but after living in Oakland, I think strict gun laws won't have a meaningful impact because California has super strict gun laws and despite this fact, the gun violence in my area is super high and I hear gun shots going off all the time. I see strict gun laws like the decades old war on drugs and how it does little to prevent cocaine and heroin from slipping into the country. That being said, I'm all for more gun control because I want less guns on the street but I do think it is frustrating that as a law-abiding citizen, I want and can't have a CCW permit so I can't protect myself outside my home but at the same time plenty of non law-abiding folks are running around strapped and robbing people.
1. We need Judge Dredd style the gun won’t operate without fingerprint/DNA identification technology. I believe this actually exists. It should be mandatory rolled out and anyone found in possession of a gun without it gets a mandatory 10 year sentence. 2. All guns should be registered and renewed annually with a note from your doctor indicating your mental health/capacity to own a gun. Mandatory 10 year sentence for possession of an unlicensed gun. 3. There should be a federal liability insurance requirement with a portion of the proceeds funding mental health. This is about the only way that “responsible” gun owners would be the only ones with guns.
