It's true that anything that is banned that people really want just becomes a black market where you get it anyway. That's why the whole war on drugs has been a complete failure and always will be.
That's a leap of an assumption. Do we do any psyc eval for gun purchase? There is an assumption that this guy was normal. From what I have seen, he's far from normal. It's very possible that a psyc eval would bring up red flags. Also, taking any one incident is looking at the tree and not the forest. You can take any incident and said well, this ain't going to work (or vise-versa). Yea, that might very well be the case for that incident. It doesn't mean all incidents are the same.
As noted "shall not be infringed" is a subjective term. The USSC has already upheld the government's power to tax so in this case a tax on firearms should fall under that. Anyway I'm guessing that firearm sales are already taxed under sales taxes. Further the strictest reading of the 2nd applies to arms not ammunition so even if the gun itself couldn't be taxed there is nothing stopping a tax on bullets.
I'm fine with tax for societal cost. A Metabo Law tax like Japan's should be the first societal cost tax in place.
Not really. The vote is a right that is granted and administered by the government so under the equal protection it must make the standards as wide as possible. Gun ownership is a right but not one administered by the government. If it was then the government would also have to being giving guns to anyone who wanted it. As I stated in my post above the government does have the power to tax. True such restrictions might not apply to this situation but it might in many other cases. This is again the perfect being the enemy of the good. If the idea that laws might not work in every single situation then we wouldn't pass any laws. This is right here in a nutshell one of the biggest problems is that we accept that mass killings are somehow a necessity of our freedom. I've been to Australia and I didn't feel any less free there than I do here even with their gun ban. As far as going someplace else considering how much you criticize things in the US I'm surprised you haven't left since clearly there are somethings you would like to see changed.
And thus, it make sense that some drugs are legalized, taxed and regulated. There are still drugs that will never go that route because they are simply too dangerous to be legal. What you are arguing is that folks that want gun will get guns anyway. That's very true, but they will have a very hard time doing so. They become a criminal for doing so. Most folks would simply stop and not proceed, because unlike drug, where it's a thing they are doing to themselves and is addictive, most folks aren't addictive to killing nor to gun in such a way that they would rather becomes a criminal. There are some crazy that are, but that's a limited number reserved for psycho. With less guns, violence will continue, but it wouldn't be as deadly for the general population. Things won't get escalate to deadly force so readily. People that want to kill themselves, will continue to kill themselves, but will be less effective at doing it without guns. The hard core killer, there isn't much you can do about that, except make it more difficult for them to have access. With that all said, I'm not for banning guns. I'm for common sense restrictions and check. But that's just not happening in today USA. We are just simply crazy addictive to a tool for some reason and any limit placed on it is treated like blasphemy. And so, given the choice.... Gun as is today, Gun with more restriction and check, Gun ban. I would absolutely choose gun with more restriction and check. But if that's never going to happen and the only two choice are the two extreme, I would go for Gun ban. People lives are more important than having a love for a tool, even if it's sacred.
He bought two Glocks last month. One of the two was the gun used to kill the two people. If there was a two month waiting period, or three month period, would the extra time cooled him off? Perhaps. Unfortunately, we won't know, since in Virginia there is no waiting period. It also should be noted that according to the station manager, the police had to be called to escort him out of the building. Was a report of that ever made? Given the problems of workplace violence... should a police report been made? And would that have been flagged by a waiting period and a background check? Again, we won't know, since there was no waiting period. Last, he bought two Glocks from the gun dealer. What if there had been a limit of one gun purchased win a 90 day period. Would that have changed things? Perhaps not... it only took one gun to kill the two people. But again, we won't know, since there is no limit to the number of guns one can buy at within a certain period of time in Virginia.
The longest waiting period is 14 days in Hawaii. California has a 10 day. You think 90 day is common sense or are you just moving the slider to a point previous to when he purchased the gun? Didn't he have a background check? I don't see anything that would be flagged in the NICS system. Are you saying you want to fix the NICS system? I'm all for that. The problem certainly isn't a waiting period here. I don't even see how it is related. The problem is you either disagree with what gets a "Denied" from NICS or how effective NICS is matching up people to things that should result in a "Denied".
mar1juana is a plant. So much easier than manufacturing guns. A ban would increase the need for greater border security where guns would certainly be illegally imported.
I think a waiting period of any length is better than none. I would think longer is better within reason. The FBI says the average time it takes to determine if illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days. So that seems like a reasonable waiting period. Here we are in strong agreement. From the NBC news report I cited previously: So yes, a change in the standard by which a person's background and mental fitness to purchase a firearm needs to be examined and changed. What f the killer made verbal threats as the police escorted him out of the station? Shouldn't that be a flag in a background check? Changes are needed, both regarding gun laws and mental health approaches. You need the time to examine the applicant's background, and you need to change the standards by which we judge people.
You want anyone who a policeman "heard" issue a verbal threat to be denied the right to purchase a weapon? Would this extend to their weapon ownership rights revoked? I assume that would require nationwide mandatory registration which brings up all kinds of problems. These hypothetical laws are fun to discuss but the problem is people like me keep any of them from ever happening.
You'd rather have someone shot a few months after some pissed off ex-employee threatened to kill them while the cops were escorting them out of the building? And yes... gun registration is something I'd like to happen. Again, requiring someone to register their gun doesn't prevent them from owning it. So no 2nd Amendment issue. btw, a very large majority also support gun registration.
I am just asking you to outline what you specifically want in a hypothetical world where it would be possible to pass. So I guess you want the word of a police officer to be enough to prevent someone owning guns and having any guns in their possession removed.
Again, directly answering your questions, yes, if a disgruntled employee is escorted by the police, screaming he will kill someone there... yes, I would want his application to purchase a gun to be denied. And yes, if there is a gun registration practice in place, and the same guy is pulled from a building threatening t kill someone I would want whatever guns registered to be removed. Now if its possible to have the person evaluated over time and is deemed mentally healthy enough to own a gun... sure, let them own the gun. But I would rather err on the side of public safety, at least in the situation we're describing. So now I have completed answered your hypothetical, answer mine... would you not take the steps I described in the situation being discussed? If not, what you tell the victims family? What you you tell the public?
No I would not take those steps. Thousands of people are fired and there were almost 90,000 EEOC complaints filed last year. I don't trust a policeman's word enough, especially in the case of a minority male, to remove an otherwise law abiding citizens right to self defense. I think the entire plan to confiscate thousands of guns based on verbal threats and no criminal activity Orwellian. I'm sorry you thought my questions were pedantic, I was just curious about your opinion and if you actually considered the procedures that would be needed to carry it out.
i don't know what's worse, the gun nuts or racists on social media using this tragedy to push their agendas.
