Why would mental health requirements to carry and background checks to purchase and bans on "assault weapons" not address those issues? They would, to some extent, but their efficacy is limited because most of the gangbangers are not lawfully purchasing firearms. The guns we find on them are either unserialized, or they are registered to other people, often reported stolen. California has had an assault weapons ban for over 20 years but the gangs all seem to have assault weapons (and did during the federal nationwide ban as well) because they don't care about gun laws (in fact, every gun a gang member carries is illegal in California, because there is a law against gang members carrying guns). They are committing crimes every day, why would they care if the gun they are using is illegal as well? So the problem people that are the drivers of gun violence are not going through background checks when they get their guns, they are not going through mental health checks to carry their guns, and they are not using legal guns. The use of the guns is more regulated. They are the ones committing crimes. Most of them have been committing other crimes. It was just a gang name I figured everyone had heard of, if I had said Moonlight Strangers, would you know what I was talking about? Yes. When nations decide to disarm their population, the first place they go is the gun registry. I think that is quite a good reason to push back on registration. Many people don't report their gun stolen until someone comes around asking about it. Others do. You would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their gun was not stolen and instead was illegally sold. We already have laws for illegal firearms sales in California that are just the sort of laws people want passed nationwide about no private transfers without a background check (in fact other than spouses or parent to child, all transfers must be done through a licensed firearm dealer and all people receiving a pistol must have a handgun safety certificate). I don't recall ever seeing it charged, even on rap sheets. Which constitutional rights have we conditioned on being signed off by a psychiatrist and two other people? Theoretically, the same would be true for doctors signing off on medical mar1juana 10 years ago, but it didn't happen, even when they had websites advertising their 10 minute in and out medical mar1juana cards.
Modern gang law doesn't criminalize membership, only active participation or crimes in association with other gang members. The legislature just got rid of mandatory enforcement and replaced it with judicial discretion, so oops for California.
You are proving my point. If every gun was serialized and required registration in sale just like a car it would be much harder to obtain a gun illegally. That would cut down the number of guns that gangs had access to. But then you say a gun registry is how they take guns away - but you just said guns can't be banned because of the 2nd amendment - so again, why push back against a gun registry. You're contradicting yourself here. Guns are not more regulated than cars. Completely false. Criminals aren't criminals until they commit the crime. If you want to keep guns out of criminal hands you need a gun registry so they can't get them illegally. Again you seem to make these strange statements about solutions that ultimately will contradict your arguments. Give solutions not circular logic. People would report their guns stolen if they knew they could get in trouble. If it's a crime not to report a stolen gun, that's going to be a deterrent. And how many guns can you have stolen before it's obvious you are selling them illegally? We can catch people selling drugs illegally, we can do this. Right now it's too easy to circumvent legal channels. That can be fixed. If you can serialize every gun and track from it's manufacturer you will have less illegal firearms. Your rights are always conditioned. There are times when you aren't allowed to speak. You can't practice your religion whenever you want. You can't bear arms on an airplane for instance. People in Gitmo don't have a right to a speedy trial. Always strings attached - so let's try not to pretend there isn't.
It is already illegal, and they are doing it anyway. What you are asking for is already being tried here and it doesn't work. Every gun is already required to be serialized. Every transfer is already required to be done through a dealer with a background check and a new owner registration. They just don't do it because they are criminals. You all don't want the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals. Why would I expect that protection to continue? Shooting guns is far more regulated than driving cars. No one gets arrested just for driving a car in a residential neighborhood. You also don't have to take you car to a licensed car dealer to transfer ownership. Yes, that is why I said they are the ones committing the crimes. Again, you fail to understand that we already do that and it doesn't work. They don't care that it is illegal to transfer a gun without going through an FFL. They don't care that it is illegal to have an unserialized firearm. They just do it anyway. You cannot keep guns out of the criminals' hands, you have to take the criminals off the streets. That is already required. Which other rights require a psychiatrist and two other people to sign off that you are okay to practice them. Speech? Voting? Religion? Freedom from quartering troops during peacetime? There are time place and manner restrictions to rights (which as you pointed out also apply to guns). There are no rights where someone gets to arbitrarily take them away unless and until some psychiatrist and two other random people sign off on your exercise of those rights.
Pretty sure people have been committed to mental institutions against their will with a sign off from a judge and a psychiatrist. Regarding the argument of criminals will break the law so why have laws, the point would always be deterrent. If selling of guns had more legal repercussions, illegal sales would cost more due to the risk involved. If prices on guns go up, less criminals would have the means to purchase them. Legal sales may cost slightly more for "paperwork", but that's hardly unconstitutional. Private sells would require submitting paperwork to the county, just like transferring a car title.
Yeah, that would be the opposite, where your rights that you were exercising are being taken away because you have been found crazy. There are no rights that you don't get to exercise until you go out and get a psychiatrist and two other people to certify that you can do it. That is not the way rights work. Everyone gets them and there are ways that you can lose them, you don't have to petition to be allowed to exercise them. About the closest you can get is the right to represent yourself in a criminal trial, but the bar is very low and that is a judicially created right, not in the Constitution. That isn't the argument. No one has said, "Why have laws." The argument is that the specific laws being suggested already exist in California, they are impossible to enforce (except "assault weapons" ban, I have gotten a couple convictions on that but it hasn't significantly reduced the number of "assault weapons" I am seeing), and they cause far more restrictions to innocent people than they solve problems in crime. California already does more than that (you have to transfer your gun through an FFL, who has to run a background check). The criminals don't do that and it is impossible to catch the people who sold them the gun. These laws just don't work. The law abiding citizens jump through all the hoops and spend more time and money. The people doing the shootings don't, and there are no consequences. It doesn't work as a deterrent, because you can't prosecute these crimes. Every once in a while you will see a coded text message about a gun transaction in a seized cell phone, but you don't have the gun and you can't prove the sale ever took place or that the gun even exists. No one said registration is a ban.
Yes that was my point that those policies had constitutional issues so they were stopped. You’re the one making the argument that it’s a bad thing that previous enforcement was better. Again an odd argument to take for a Libertarian that mandatory enforcement is a good thing.
There are multiple car registries including both VIN numbers and license plates. You're arguing against yourself.
The last time 3000 people died in one place in the US we had two 20 years wars that killed thousands of people and costs trillions of dollars. Imagine if a disease was the leading cause of death in children. How much money do you think we would spend combating it. Instead we have morons promoting the disease.
No one in this thread said registration was a ban. Here is what I said and you responded to: Where did I say anything about criminalizing mere association or wearing gang colors? None of the issues I mentioned implicate the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendments. Not really. It is not inherently anti-libertarian to want those fair laws that exist to be applied evenly and without discretion. When judges get to decide what penalties to impose and which ones to dismiss or stay, it creates a system that can favor one group over another, with the government playing favorites. That is anti-libertarian. VINs are just serial numbers, guns are required to have those too. That is not a difference. License plates are only required for driving on public roads, you can have your car in the garage without a license plate. Shooting guns is more regulated than driving cars. Most driving you do on public roads is legal, there are speed limits, you can't be intoxicated, you have to obey posted signs, etc. Try shooting a gun on a public road. Not allowed at all. Shooting is more restricted than driving, and it isn't close.
Someone has to be psychopathic to believe that we need more prisoners in a society that has 4 percent of the world's population and 24% of the world's prison population.
1. Shootings only occur in gang areas so He shouldn't have been living in a gang area so he wouldn't have been shot 2. if only we had less regulation he could have been sleeping with his own gun for his protection 3. If he had young kids they could have been trained in battle field trauma and could have saved his life and returned fire with their own AR Am I doing it right @StupidMoniker
Do you know how many lives have been ruined by mandatory sentences? Does your casual intrigue on this subject where you have basically zero intellectual curiosity on the human effects on things like mandatory sentencing where you get some vague infographic you maybe saw a 2 second glimpse of that proves your preconceived narratives that harsher sentencing is better without any intellectual curiosity to delve deeper such as look into covwriances because it satisfies your itch to feed your narrative that we need most poor people in prison scare you? Like does it genuinely scare you that you might be this psychopathic with zero notion of what empathy feels like?
No one has made that claim. Sleeping with his own gun would have done nothing to change the situation. I don't know how quickly he died, or where he was shot, but it is possible someone being on the scene to render immediate medical assistance could have helped, depending on the exact facts. Sometimes random tragedies happen. There was a social media influencer that fell off a cliff and died trying to take a selfie, but we don't ban cameras or Instagram because of it. How many people do you imagine have been killed because a guy trying to modify a gun accidentally discharged it through a wall and hit someone sleeping on the other side? That isn't a problem that requires a policy solution, it is a freak accident. So no, you are not doing it right. Mandatory sentences work. Mass incarceration works. Crime was down (way, way down) in California, then we changed the law to reduce sentences and allow more judicial discretion, and now crime is up, murder is up. Mandatory sentences don't ruin lives, because they only apply after you have been convicted of a crime. Being a criminal ruins your life when you get caught. I have had no trouble whatsoever not robbing people, shooting people, etc. That isn't a high bar. Anyone can do it. I have no sympathy for people crying about how tough it is to do the time after they do the crime. There is no mandatory sentence for being poor. I think you missed the point. I said those are the very cases we need to be focusing on, not how many guns Donut Operator owns.
Mass incarceration doesn't work. Your lack of intellectual curiosity to spread this narrative shows your psychopathic nature. Do you even ask yourself when you see these numbers about basic covariance factors? Did you even align Cali's crime rate rise with rest of the nation to normalize it? Do you do these things or do you automatically nut the moment you see any data that even slightly suggests you might be right about more people being in prison is good where the nut prevents further intellectual inquisitiveness? I know when I nut I stop caring for a bit and just want to nap. Maybe that's where your problem lies. Try to control the nut and not release so you can further your curiosity endeavours on a serious subject without forming premature ejaculate conclusions.
