I think the key word for any reform is "responsible" and I'm glad McConaughey hit on it multiple times. If the anti-gun-control crowd want to reflexively resist any new laws that touch upon the possession or use of firearms, the natural retort should be, "How does this impact responsible gun owners?" Some examples:
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
If the "cold dead hands" crowd wants to reject common-sense reforms, put them on the defensive on the topic of responsibility instead of making the reformers the ones who have to justify why their reforms don't violate the Second Amendment.
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
Define "in use". The purpose of the gun is to defend life. It cannot do that in any effective way when "locked up", whatever that means. The courts have clearly acknowledged such. You cannot have a right to defend yourself with a gun that's rendered inaccessible in a locked container by law. Imagine having to have an locked safe in your kitchen for your fire extinguisher (I would hope you do keep an extinguisher there).
And what exactly is the issue meant to be resolved by locking guns up? There's no "epidemic" of gun accidents. It certainly won't affect mass-shooters (didn't stop the Sandy Hook killer).
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
Why would you think they do? Seriously, why would you think this is even a useful question? Do you really believe it when they tell you gun owners object to sellers doing "due diligence" (Again, whatever that means)?
How about you support the opening of the NICS system to citizens so they can do background checks themselves? So they can do that "due diligence".
You know who opposes that idea? Gun control supporters.
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
What a bizarre comparison. Millions of Americans under 21 have owned firearms. Firearms don't compromise one's mental faculties. Alcohol does.
One is an object, the other is a mind-altering substance. I would have thought the differences would be obvious.
"Define "in use". The purpose of the gun is to defend life. It cannot do that in any effective way when "locked up", whatever that means. The courts have clearly acknowledged such. You cannot have a right to defend yourself with a gun that's rendered inaccessible in a locked container by law. Imagine having to have an locked safe in your kitchen for your fire extinguisher (I would hope you do keep an extinguisher there)."
To be 100% honest, I'm more interested in gun owners being responsible for knowing where their weapons are (at all times), and being help accountable when they slip up on that front and something terrible happens as a consequence. If you want to keep your weapon in a drawer of a bedside table and are confident that you're the only one that has access to it, you have my blessing and more power to you. However, if you're leaving in that drawer unlocked for expediency's sake and you have kids around and something happens to that kid, you should legally be on the hook with automatic criminal charges for your carelessness enabling a tragedy.
As for the fire extinguisher, I don't recall the last time a fire extinguisher was used to kill someone or was involved in a fatal accident.
"How about you support the opening of the NICS system to citizens so they can do background checks themselves? So they can do that 'due diligence'."
If citizens are selling or transferring weapons to other citizens, I 100% support opening up the NICS system, and when a weapon is provided to someone who uses it to commit a crime, the vendor is held responsible as well (with a reasonable statute of limitations that eventually expires their responsibility).
"To be 100% honest, I'm more interested in gun owners being responsible for knowing where their weapons are (at all times), and being help accountable when they slip up on that front and something terrible happens as a consequence."
I have to ask, why do you think they *aren't* responsible. With over 400 million firearms in this nation and such a low accidental death rate, would it not be relatively clear that they *are* being responsible? Again, why the concerned presumption that they are not?
Given the low rates of deaths, it's pretty clear most all parents aren't leaving firearms where their kids can get them, and are raising children who are respectful of firearms instead of fearful of them.
"As for the fire extinguisher, I don't recall the last time a fire extinguisher was used to kill someone or was involved in a fatal accident."
I certainly recall them being used to *save* lives, which was my point. Most defensive gun uses don't result in death, either. But they do save lives all the same.
"If citizens are selling or transferring weapons to other citizens, I 100% support opening up the NICS system, and when a weapon is provided to someone who uses it to commit a crime, the vendor is held responsible as well (with a reasonable statute of limitations that eventually expires their responsibility)."
Good, that's at least progress. However, if the other person has *passed* the background check, there's no good legal nor moral reason for the "vendor" to be held responsible. It violates basic legal ethics.
We wouldn't tolerate that for selling vehicles, and they end up killing about as many people per year as guns do. And no, the old saw "but the gun is designed to kill" doesn't fly here, either. If it's so well designed to kill, then over 99% of those guns in the U.S. are clearly defective. The vast majority of firearms sold between individuals in this country are never misused.
A "reasonable statute of limitations" makes no sense. What does it matter if it's 20 minutes, 20 days, or 20 years? They still sold the firearm. No, making someone liable for a transaction they *got government blessing for* by way of the background check system is not acceptable. We don't allow it for guns sold to dealers or pawn stores, there's no legal standing to do so for private sales that have gone through the same background check.
I'm not entirely unsure about I've suggested is unfair. It does not seem unfair for a community to insist that reasonable standards for responsibility be adopted by its members who choose to possess firearms. It also doesn't seem unfair for those standards to backed up with legal sanctions when people fail to meet those minimum standards.
As for the sellers, knowing to whom you're selling to and what their risk profile isn't a novel innovation of my own. These kinds of standards (Know Your Client[1]) are a key part of legal and ethical requirements in the banking and finance industries, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for firearm vendors (be they businesses or individuals) to generate risk assessments of whom to who they are selling weapons, and to deny sales to risky or questionable customers in the same way banks can and do refuse to do business with customers with a spotty financial history or questionable standing in the community. And it doesn't seem to be unreasonable or unfair at all to attach legal consequences when gun vendors fail in their KYC diligence, as was the clearly the case in the Uvalde shooting. The Second Amendment protects your individual right to own a firearm, it does not obligate someone else to sell you one.
While I live in Chicago now and get to read daily about all the failures in keeping guns out of irresponsible hands, I also grew up in rural New Mexico, and enjoy going shooting with family members. I completed my firearm and hunters' safety course back in middle school, so it's not like I'm some city slicker helicoptering in with "solutions".
I have ZERO problem if someone owns a firearm and owns it responsibly. (I'd support your right to own fully-automatic weapons currently prohibited by law if I was confident it would only be used in responsible ways.) In my family's case, my father collects rifles, pistols, and other weapons. He keeps them secure and locked in a safe when not in use. I could call him right now and ask where his weapons are and I'm 100% confident he could rattle off to me where each and every one is, even the ones that are not in his safe at the moment.
I don't understand why you think holding people to that simple standard (know where your weapons are at all times) is unreasonable or unfair, or why it would be unfair for a community to enforce that standard by leveling meaningful consequences when that standard is not being met.* Is it really needling lawful gun owners if they're already doing what they should be doing?
* In my prior comment, I mentioned holding gun owners responsible for knowing where their weapons were. What I left off - and this may be helpful in reconciling our two positions - is that should a weapon be identified as being misplaced (such as someone breaking into my father's gun safe, or discovering that your gun isn't where you left it), the gun owner would be absolved of legal liability as soon as they have notified the local law enforcement of precisely what was missing, so that process for recovering the missing weapon before it can be misused.
"I'm not entirely unsure about I've suggested is unfair. It does not seem unfair for a community to insist that reasonable standards for responsibility be adopted by its members who choose to possess firearms. It also doesn't seem unfair for those standards to backed up with legal sanctions when people fail to meet those minimum standards."
Weeellll, except for the fact that it's typically considered unfair, and for very good reasons, generally. The "community" has limited abilities under law to insist on "reasonable standards", *especially on fundamental, enumerated human rights*, primarily because one woman's reasonable is another woman's infringement.
Thankfully, when it comes to rights, especially enumerated rights, courts take a dim view of restrictions in the name of "reasonableness" or "public safety" claims. Such restrictions tend to build, and end up bootstrapping into perverse limitations on rights. Just look at what’s happened to the 4th Amendment over the decades.
"As for the sellers, knowing to whom you're selling to and what their risk profile isn't a novel innovation of my own. These kinds of standards (Know Your Client[1]) are a key part of legal and ethical requirements in the banking and finance industries, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for firearm vendors (be they businesses or individuals) to generate risk assessments of whom to who they are selling weapons, and to deny sales to risky or questionable customers in the same way banks can and do refuse to do business with customers with a spotty financial history or questionable standing in the community."
The concept is already codified into U.S. law as it relates to firearms sales, I’m surprised you didn’t know. You're right - it's not novel. It’s already on the books.
"And it doesn't seem to be unreasonable or unfair at all to attach legal consequences when gun vendors fail in their KYC diligence, as was the clearly the case in the Uvalde shooting."
"Clearly"? It seems clear he followed all legal requirements to purchase. It seems they followed all required laws and regulations. If you're saying different, please highlight the law or laws that was broken and by whom. I'd expect there'll be little delay in charging them for it.
"The Second Amendment protects your individual right to own a firearm, it does not obligate someone else to sell you one."
Correct, just as no one's obligated to provide one with housing or healthcare or computers or food. Seems obvious to most people, and is also codified into existing law. Gun dealers can refuse to sell (or even cancel a pending sale) if they deem it prudent to do so. The law grants them discretion. Just like they did when gun control advocate Mark Kelly attempted to buy an AR-15 from an Arizona gun store after he made conflicting claims about who he was buying it for – for which, of course, being a gun-control advocate, he was never investigated.
I'd expect you'll keep consistency with this principle in terms of the currently-under-attack right to build one’s own firearm. In such a case it's clear then that the right to build one’s own must be protected, otherwise the right has no meaning, since there’s clearly no obligation for anyone to provide you with one.
“I don't understand why you think holding people to that simple standard (know where your weapons are at all times) is unreasonable or unfair, or why it would be unfair for a community to enforce that standard by leveling meaningful consequences when that standard is not being met.* Is it really needling lawful gun owners if they're already doing what they should be doing?”
I don’t understand why resisting the call to holding people to a “simple standard” that, in implementation, usually turns out to anything but, would be unreasonable.
I think it unfair that the owner should be punished for the misuse of the firearm by a criminal who stole it, I think we can agree on that one. I also find it unfair that laws are passed to require reporting of such crimes within X number of hours, or the *victim of the crime* then becomes a criminal. Many such laws don’t even allow for reasonable accommodation, such as where someone was for any number of good reasons unable to report the theft. These laws primarily get used as an excuse to punish lawful gun owners who through no fault of our own have become victims of crime.
Never mind that regardless of whether the gun is reported stolen or not has *no* effect on whether it may or may not be used in a crime thereafter – it’s gone either way. Unfairly punishing the victim achieves nothing. Given the low rate of recovered firearms, *and the deliberate difficulty* imposed on returning those firearms to their rightful owners, it again becomes a means of placing lawful-gun owners in legal jeopardy for no fault of their own.
“…the gun owner would be absolved of legal liability as soon as they have notified the local law enforcement of precisely what was missing, so that process for recovering the missing weapon before it can be misused.”
“As soon as?” So, a gun owner who returns home to find his firearms missing, and which were used shortly after they were stolen, and therefore *before* he ever had any hope of reporting it, is…what, out of luck? Many of the existing laws in the states that have them provide *no exception* in situations like this. What use is this in preventing crime? No thanks.
I believe there can be responsible, reasonable gun controls. I also believe 21 should be the age for voting, alcohol, firearm ownership and draft registration. I would make exceptions for military volunteers under the age of 21 once they complete six months of honorable duty.
School safety is a thornier problem. My opinion is that schools are chosen as targets by immature and mentally ill individuals because that is where the most hurt can be inflicted. Many people feel that schools should not be turned into fortresses. I disagree. We should do whatever is necessary to protect these targets.
I find it shocking and sad that those who would never bat a eye over our banks, stores and hospitals having armed security somehow think it's beyond the pale to protect our kids where they spend a good portion of their day.
It seems our politicians have no problem with it - for themselves. The schools their kids attend have multiple armed guards. Perhaps they think their kids are more precious than ours.
What is life without our emotions David. When is the best time to address a problem? When the shit hits the fan, or when there is none? Do you honestly believe any actions we take will fix anything over night?
I know you are a reasonable person and i suspect your answers would be along the same line as mine (maybe not). Emotions are the very thing that drive us, inspire us, without them we are tantamount to a card board box. Go for a period of time without mass shootings and see what efforts are made or energy spent to fix these issues. Finally, nothing ever gets fixed over night, all changes are achieved over time. The bigger issue is when states are allowing (as they have been) for these problems to be ignored and exacerbated.
I asked weeks back, after Buffalo, where would we be if the crime bill of 1994 had not sunset ten years later? I got my answer yesterday in a news clip. In 2004 there were 400,000 AR type rifles in the country. Now there are 20 million of them. Imagine if those provisions had remained in play. Would we be where we are today?
Lastly, i heard or read another statistic yesterday regarding recent polling. It claimed that 44% of the republicans polled believed that these types of mass shootings were the price we all had to pay for the right of freedom (gun ownership). It begs the question doesn't it: Is there are number of dead children that is too high, too much?
The constant drumbeat and threat of “gun confiscation” from the left and the fear of it from the right, plus the rapacious profit motive of gun manufacturers has caused record sales. So many people stockpile out of fear they won’t be able to buy rifles anymore. It’s ridiculous.
You are probably right about the stockpiling issue Steve. That's why, had the crime bill of 1994 been allowed to stand, we would in fact be in a better place. As far as the lament about the left taking the guns, it's a red herring, always has been. It's akin to the minority screaming to de-fund the police. It's never the majority of those seeking sensible changes. It's simply the cry from the NRA, gun manufacturers and the politicians they buy who want to have it all just like it is. So what if we lose a bunch of school kids from the crazies in the world...it's the price of freedom. Right?
We should at least be honest about the fact that many prominent gun control supporters and politicians have in fact been saying they want to confiscate. Eric Swalwell being one such example. Beto O'Rourke being another.
It's no red-herring if they keep saying it. The NRA aren't putting those words in their mouths.
It's far more the politicians who beat the drum every time. They are the ones causing the record sales, not the gun manufacturers. The makers don't advertise any more than they do at any other time. But when Beto O'Rourke opens his mouth, everyone runs out to clear out the shelves.
There's a reason many gun stores have pictures of prominent gun-control politicians with the caption "Salesman of the Year" on their walls - They're doing their job for them.
Those politicians don't care about the deaths, or the numbers of guns they cause to be bought. They only care about the poll numbers.
"Red Flag" laws are the trend of the moment, but they don't have a future. Legally, they are a nightmare of Due Process and Equal Protection violations. We will see a case before SCOTUS before long, and they'll slap it down forcefully.
Raising the age to buy rifles will not likely fly either, since most such mass shooters are above age for purchasing rifles, and therefore subjecting . Including Juvenile records in background checks *might* pass muster, but there's no indication of any effectiveness this would have.
The real purpose of raising the age is to provide a chilling effect on the ability of the gun community and culture to continue to propagate itself as it has always done, with the introduction of responsible young adults into gun ownership. It's in essence a cultural attack, and anyone who would support it might think carefully about the precedent it sets for other such transitional events.
I think the key word for any reform is "responsible" and I'm glad McConaughey hit on it multiple times. If the anti-gun-control crowd want to reflexively resist any new laws that touch upon the possession or use of firearms, the natural retort should be, "How does this impact responsible gun owners?" Some examples:
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
If the "cold dead hands" crowd wants to reject common-sense reforms, put them on the defensive on the topic of responsibility instead of making the reformers the ones who have to justify why their reforms don't violate the Second Amendment.
"Why would responsible gun owners reject the idea that their guns should be locked up when not in use?"
Define "in use". The purpose of the gun is to defend life. It cannot do that in any effective way when "locked up", whatever that means. The courts have clearly acknowledged such. You cannot have a right to defend yourself with a gun that's rendered inaccessible in a locked container by law. Imagine having to have an locked safe in your kitchen for your fire extinguisher (I would hope you do keep an extinguisher there).
And what exactly is the issue meant to be resolved by locking guns up? There's no "epidemic" of gun accidents. It certainly won't affect mass-shooters (didn't stop the Sandy Hook killer).
"Why would a responsible gun owner object to sellers doing their due diligence in understanding to whom sellers are providing a lethal weapon?"
Why would you think they do? Seriously, why would you think this is even a useful question? Do you really believe it when they tell you gun owners object to sellers doing "due diligence" (Again, whatever that means)?
How about you support the opening of the NICS system to citizens so they can do background checks themselves? So they can do that "due diligence".
You know who opposes that idea? Gun control supporters.
"On the issue of alcohol, folks under 21 don't enjoy the presumption that they will be responsible drinkers. Why do they deserve the presumption that they'll be responsible firearm owners?"
What a bizarre comparison. Millions of Americans under 21 have owned firearms. Firearms don't compromise one's mental faculties. Alcohol does.
One is an object, the other is a mind-altering substance. I would have thought the differences would be obvious.
"Define "in use". The purpose of the gun is to defend life. It cannot do that in any effective way when "locked up", whatever that means. The courts have clearly acknowledged such. You cannot have a right to defend yourself with a gun that's rendered inaccessible in a locked container by law. Imagine having to have an locked safe in your kitchen for your fire extinguisher (I would hope you do keep an extinguisher there)."
To be 100% honest, I'm more interested in gun owners being responsible for knowing where their weapons are (at all times), and being help accountable when they slip up on that front and something terrible happens as a consequence. If you want to keep your weapon in a drawer of a bedside table and are confident that you're the only one that has access to it, you have my blessing and more power to you. However, if you're leaving in that drawer unlocked for expediency's sake and you have kids around and something happens to that kid, you should legally be on the hook with automatic criminal charges for your carelessness enabling a tragedy.
As for the fire extinguisher, I don't recall the last time a fire extinguisher was used to kill someone or was involved in a fatal accident.
"How about you support the opening of the NICS system to citizens so they can do background checks themselves? So they can do that 'due diligence'."
If citizens are selling or transferring weapons to other citizens, I 100% support opening up the NICS system, and when a weapon is provided to someone who uses it to commit a crime, the vendor is held responsible as well (with a reasonable statute of limitations that eventually expires their responsibility).
"To be 100% honest, I'm more interested in gun owners being responsible for knowing where their weapons are (at all times), and being help accountable when they slip up on that front and something terrible happens as a consequence."
I have to ask, why do you think they *aren't* responsible. With over 400 million firearms in this nation and such a low accidental death rate, would it not be relatively clear that they *are* being responsible? Again, why the concerned presumption that they are not?
Given the low rates of deaths, it's pretty clear most all parents aren't leaving firearms where their kids can get them, and are raising children who are respectful of firearms instead of fearful of them.
"As for the fire extinguisher, I don't recall the last time a fire extinguisher was used to kill someone or was involved in a fatal accident."
I certainly recall them being used to *save* lives, which was my point. Most defensive gun uses don't result in death, either. But they do save lives all the same.
"If citizens are selling or transferring weapons to other citizens, I 100% support opening up the NICS system, and when a weapon is provided to someone who uses it to commit a crime, the vendor is held responsible as well (with a reasonable statute of limitations that eventually expires their responsibility)."
Good, that's at least progress. However, if the other person has *passed* the background check, there's no good legal nor moral reason for the "vendor" to be held responsible. It violates basic legal ethics.
We wouldn't tolerate that for selling vehicles, and they end up killing about as many people per year as guns do. And no, the old saw "but the gun is designed to kill" doesn't fly here, either. If it's so well designed to kill, then over 99% of those guns in the U.S. are clearly defective. The vast majority of firearms sold between individuals in this country are never misused.
A "reasonable statute of limitations" makes no sense. What does it matter if it's 20 minutes, 20 days, or 20 years? They still sold the firearm. No, making someone liable for a transaction they *got government blessing for* by way of the background check system is not acceptable. We don't allow it for guns sold to dealers or pawn stores, there's no legal standing to do so for private sales that have gone through the same background check.
Put another way; If you want progress, you're going to *have* to be fair about it, not use it as an excuse to needle at lawful gun owners.
I'm not entirely unsure about I've suggested is unfair. It does not seem unfair for a community to insist that reasonable standards for responsibility be adopted by its members who choose to possess firearms. It also doesn't seem unfair for those standards to backed up with legal sanctions when people fail to meet those minimum standards.
As for the sellers, knowing to whom you're selling to and what their risk profile isn't a novel innovation of my own. These kinds of standards (Know Your Client[1]) are a key part of legal and ethical requirements in the banking and finance industries, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for firearm vendors (be they businesses or individuals) to generate risk assessments of whom to who they are selling weapons, and to deny sales to risky or questionable customers in the same way banks can and do refuse to do business with customers with a spotty financial history or questionable standing in the community. And it doesn't seem to be unreasonable or unfair at all to attach legal consequences when gun vendors fail in their KYC diligence, as was the clearly the case in the Uvalde shooting. The Second Amendment protects your individual right to own a firearm, it does not obligate someone else to sell you one.
While I live in Chicago now and get to read daily about all the failures in keeping guns out of irresponsible hands, I also grew up in rural New Mexico, and enjoy going shooting with family members. I completed my firearm and hunters' safety course back in middle school, so it's not like I'm some city slicker helicoptering in with "solutions".
I have ZERO problem if someone owns a firearm and owns it responsibly. (I'd support your right to own fully-automatic weapons currently prohibited by law if I was confident it would only be used in responsible ways.) In my family's case, my father collects rifles, pistols, and other weapons. He keeps them secure and locked in a safe when not in use. I could call him right now and ask where his weapons are and I'm 100% confident he could rattle off to me where each and every one is, even the ones that are not in his safe at the moment.
I don't understand why you think holding people to that simple standard (know where your weapons are at all times) is unreasonable or unfair, or why it would be unfair for a community to enforce that standard by leveling meaningful consequences when that standard is not being met.* Is it really needling lawful gun owners if they're already doing what they should be doing?
* In my prior comment, I mentioned holding gun owners responsible for knowing where their weapons were. What I left off - and this may be helpful in reconciling our two positions - is that should a weapon be identified as being misplaced (such as someone breaking into my father's gun safe, or discovering that your gun isn't where you left it), the gun owner would be absolved of legal liability as soon as they have notified the local law enforcement of precisely what was missing, so that process for recovering the missing weapon before it can be misused.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowyourclient.asp
"I'm not entirely unsure about I've suggested is unfair. It does not seem unfair for a community to insist that reasonable standards for responsibility be adopted by its members who choose to possess firearms. It also doesn't seem unfair for those standards to backed up with legal sanctions when people fail to meet those minimum standards."
Weeellll, except for the fact that it's typically considered unfair, and for very good reasons, generally. The "community" has limited abilities under law to insist on "reasonable standards", *especially on fundamental, enumerated human rights*, primarily because one woman's reasonable is another woman's infringement.
Thankfully, when it comes to rights, especially enumerated rights, courts take a dim view of restrictions in the name of "reasonableness" or "public safety" claims. Such restrictions tend to build, and end up bootstrapping into perverse limitations on rights. Just look at what’s happened to the 4th Amendment over the decades.
"As for the sellers, knowing to whom you're selling to and what their risk profile isn't a novel innovation of my own. These kinds of standards (Know Your Client[1]) are a key part of legal and ethical requirements in the banking and finance industries, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for firearm vendors (be they businesses or individuals) to generate risk assessments of whom to who they are selling weapons, and to deny sales to risky or questionable customers in the same way banks can and do refuse to do business with customers with a spotty financial history or questionable standing in the community."
The concept is already codified into U.S. law as it relates to firearms sales, I’m surprised you didn’t know. You're right - it's not novel. It’s already on the books.
"And it doesn't seem to be unreasonable or unfair at all to attach legal consequences when gun vendors fail in their KYC diligence, as was the clearly the case in the Uvalde shooting."
"Clearly"? It seems clear he followed all legal requirements to purchase. It seems they followed all required laws and regulations. If you're saying different, please highlight the law or laws that was broken and by whom. I'd expect there'll be little delay in charging them for it.
"The Second Amendment protects your individual right to own a firearm, it does not obligate someone else to sell you one."
Correct, just as no one's obligated to provide one with housing or healthcare or computers or food. Seems obvious to most people, and is also codified into existing law. Gun dealers can refuse to sell (or even cancel a pending sale) if they deem it prudent to do so. The law grants them discretion. Just like they did when gun control advocate Mark Kelly attempted to buy an AR-15 from an Arizona gun store after he made conflicting claims about who he was buying it for – for which, of course, being a gun-control advocate, he was never investigated.
I'd expect you'll keep consistency with this principle in terms of the currently-under-attack right to build one’s own firearm. In such a case it's clear then that the right to build one’s own must be protected, otherwise the right has no meaning, since there’s clearly no obligation for anyone to provide you with one.
“I don't understand why you think holding people to that simple standard (know where your weapons are at all times) is unreasonable or unfair, or why it would be unfair for a community to enforce that standard by leveling meaningful consequences when that standard is not being met.* Is it really needling lawful gun owners if they're already doing what they should be doing?”
I don’t understand why resisting the call to holding people to a “simple standard” that, in implementation, usually turns out to anything but, would be unreasonable.
I think it unfair that the owner should be punished for the misuse of the firearm by a criminal who stole it, I think we can agree on that one. I also find it unfair that laws are passed to require reporting of such crimes within X number of hours, or the *victim of the crime* then becomes a criminal. Many such laws don’t even allow for reasonable accommodation, such as where someone was for any number of good reasons unable to report the theft. These laws primarily get used as an excuse to punish lawful gun owners who through no fault of our own have become victims of crime.
Never mind that regardless of whether the gun is reported stolen or not has *no* effect on whether it may or may not be used in a crime thereafter – it’s gone either way. Unfairly punishing the victim achieves nothing. Given the low rate of recovered firearms, *and the deliberate difficulty* imposed on returning those firearms to their rightful owners, it again becomes a means of placing lawful-gun owners in legal jeopardy for no fault of their own.
“…the gun owner would be absolved of legal liability as soon as they have notified the local law enforcement of precisely what was missing, so that process for recovering the missing weapon before it can be misused.”
“As soon as?” So, a gun owner who returns home to find his firearms missing, and which were used shortly after they were stolen, and therefore *before* he ever had any hope of reporting it, is…what, out of luck? Many of the existing laws in the states that have them provide *no exception* in situations like this. What use is this in preventing crime? No thanks.
I believe there can be responsible, reasonable gun controls. I also believe 21 should be the age for voting, alcohol, firearm ownership and draft registration. I would make exceptions for military volunteers under the age of 21 once they complete six months of honorable duty.
School safety is a thornier problem. My opinion is that schools are chosen as targets by immature and mentally ill individuals because that is where the most hurt can be inflicted. Many people feel that schools should not be turned into fortresses. I disagree. We should do whatever is necessary to protect these targets.
I find it shocking and sad that those who would never bat a eye over our banks, stores and hospitals having armed security somehow think it's beyond the pale to protect our kids where they spend a good portion of their day.
It seems our politicians have no problem with it - for themselves. The schools their kids attend have multiple armed guards. Perhaps they think their kids are more precious than ours.
What is life without our emotions David. When is the best time to address a problem? When the shit hits the fan, or when there is none? Do you honestly believe any actions we take will fix anything over night?
I know you are a reasonable person and i suspect your answers would be along the same line as mine (maybe not). Emotions are the very thing that drive us, inspire us, without them we are tantamount to a card board box. Go for a period of time without mass shootings and see what efforts are made or energy spent to fix these issues. Finally, nothing ever gets fixed over night, all changes are achieved over time. The bigger issue is when states are allowing (as they have been) for these problems to be ignored and exacerbated.
I asked weeks back, after Buffalo, where would we be if the crime bill of 1994 had not sunset ten years later? I got my answer yesterday in a news clip. In 2004 there were 400,000 AR type rifles in the country. Now there are 20 million of them. Imagine if those provisions had remained in play. Would we be where we are today?
Lastly, i heard or read another statistic yesterday regarding recent polling. It claimed that 44% of the republicans polled believed that these types of mass shootings were the price we all had to pay for the right of freedom (gun ownership). It begs the question doesn't it: Is there are number of dead children that is too high, too much?
The constant drumbeat and threat of “gun confiscation” from the left and the fear of it from the right, plus the rapacious profit motive of gun manufacturers has caused record sales. So many people stockpile out of fear they won’t be able to buy rifles anymore. It’s ridiculous.
You are probably right about the stockpiling issue Steve. That's why, had the crime bill of 1994 been allowed to stand, we would in fact be in a better place. As far as the lament about the left taking the guns, it's a red herring, always has been. It's akin to the minority screaming to de-fund the police. It's never the majority of those seeking sensible changes. It's simply the cry from the NRA, gun manufacturers and the politicians they buy who want to have it all just like it is. So what if we lose a bunch of school kids from the crazies in the world...it's the price of freedom. Right?
We should at least be honest about the fact that many prominent gun control supporters and politicians have in fact been saying they want to confiscate. Eric Swalwell being one such example. Beto O'Rourke being another.
It's no red-herring if they keep saying it. The NRA aren't putting those words in their mouths.
It's far more the politicians who beat the drum every time. They are the ones causing the record sales, not the gun manufacturers. The makers don't advertise any more than they do at any other time. But when Beto O'Rourke opens his mouth, everyone runs out to clear out the shelves.
There's a reason many gun stores have pictures of prominent gun-control politicians with the caption "Salesman of the Year" on their walls - They're doing their job for them.
Those politicians don't care about the deaths, or the numbers of guns they cause to be bought. They only care about the poll numbers.
"Red Flag" laws are the trend of the moment, but they don't have a future. Legally, they are a nightmare of Due Process and Equal Protection violations. We will see a case before SCOTUS before long, and they'll slap it down forcefully.
Raising the age to buy rifles will not likely fly either, since most such mass shooters are above age for purchasing rifles, and therefore subjecting . Including Juvenile records in background checks *might* pass muster, but there's no indication of any effectiveness this would have.
The real purpose of raising the age is to provide a chilling effect on the ability of the gun community and culture to continue to propagate itself as it has always done, with the introduction of responsible young adults into gun ownership. It's in essence a cultural attack, and anyone who would support it might think carefully about the precedent it sets for other such transitional events.