Gun Control

[One Brow]

I think linking mental health evaluations and admissions to mental health facilities to back ground checks, adding background checks to gun shows, better training for CC permits (such as requiring Utah CC carriers to take a shooting course each time they renew), adding an armed guard or two to schools (not advocating armed teachers) and removing gun free zones at movie theaters, malls, parks, zoos... will do far more towards lowering gun violence.

I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks?

I agree on adding checks for gun shows and better training.

I don't think armed guards will make schools or other areas safer. Most of these mass shooters expect to die.

 

[Gameface]

This is going to be good...

I don't really expect anyone to answer. In my opinion the distinguishing factor is that it's easy to say "assault weapon" and get people to agree that "normal people" shouldn't have them, without really even understanding what makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon. Needless to say that what gun control advocates call assault weapons are distinguished more by cosmetic features than by their function in comparison to any other modern gun. As an assault weapon contains a combination of features that are widely available on other types of guns that are not currently being discussed in regard to any sort of ban.

 

[One Brow]

Anyone here who favors banning assault weapons I'd really like to understand what you consider an assault weapon? What distinguishes it from any other rifle? For extra credit please explain how its unique qualities make mass shootings or crime more probable.

Pos rep for anyone who makes an honest effort at answering the questions and not just spouting off some party-line BS

Well, going by the answers you've given (and I acknowledge I may have misunderstood them), perhaps we could slightly reduce the fatality levels in mass shootings by restricting all but three types of gun:
1) Revolvers, which take a little longer and more effort to load repeatedly than magazine weapons
2) Rifles that load bullets directly into the stock
3) Shotguns and similar instruments that load from the rear

Going by that, an "assault weapon" might be any magazine-loaded weapon.

 

[One Brow]

Unless One Brow can break ranks with his political ideologues and take a stand against incrementalism, I call his arguments dishonest.

I see no reason to think your call has merit.

The political reality is that SCOTUS has said the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. So, I am trying to consider ways that can be respected, while making things safer and still respecting that as the law of the land. Until SCOTUS reverses that ruling, all your cries of "incrementalism" are just garden-grade conspiracy-mongering.

 

[Gameface]

Well, going by the answers you've given (and I acknowledge I may have misunderstood them), perhaps we could slightly reduce the fatality levels in mass shootings by restricting all but three types of gun:
1) Revolvers, which take a little longer and more effort to load repeatedly than magazine weapons
2) Rifles that load bullets directly into the stock
3) Shotguns and similar instruments that load from the rear

Going by that, an "assault weapon" might be any magazine-loaded weapon.

Would you support a retroactive ban on all weapons that do not fall under those three types? If not do you expect banning the sale of these weapons will eventually make a difference due to attrition of ownership? Or do you actually believe banning them now will make a meaningful difference now? Especially considering the extreme rarity of mass shootings in relation to all other types of gun violence.

 

[Scat]

I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks?

The Joker shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. He bought his guns legally. More stringent mental health evaluation may have prevented the Aurora incident. Then again, if he was emulating the Joker, he may have opted to blow the theater up if he was refused access to guns.

 

[bordelais7]

I don't think armed guards will make schools or other areas safer. Most of these mass shooters expect to die.

Sure, but suicide by cop is generally not their only goal. Usually they hope to cause as much damage and/or drama as possible before being taken out. Knowing that an area has additional protection, thereby limiting their damage potential, could certainly be a deterrent.

 

[One Brow]

Would you support a retroactive ban on all weapons that do not fall under those three types? If not do you expect banning the sale of these weapons will eventually make a difference due to attrition of ownership? Or do you actually believe banning them now will make a meaningful difference now? Especially considering the extreme rarity of mass shootings in relation to all other types of gun violence.

I think "retroactive ban" is an oxymoron (or a flatly unconstitutional ex-post-facto law). You can ban possession of something that was not banned yesterday, but the ban is not retroactive.

I think banning of selling magazines for such weapons, and making their use illegal, would suffice. I think a relative few hard-core people would smuggle or create magazines; most owners would switch to legal weapons. Yes, the goal is reduction through attrition. I have no expectation we can do anything that will have a significant effect this year, or even next year.

I think any attempts at confiscation would be futile and counter-productive. It's just not realistic.

 

[One Brow]

The Joker shooter was seeing a psychiatrist. He bought his guns legally. More stringent mental health evaluation may have prevented the Aurora incident. Then again, if he was emulating the Joker, he may have opted to blow the theater up if he was refused access to guns.

Was he seeing the psychiatrist for anything that indicated to the psychiatrist such an incident was in the offing? Normally, if mental health professional gets such indications of future events, they are required to report them.

 

[One Brow]

Sure, but suicide by cop is generally not their only goal. Usually they hope to cause as much damage and/or drama as possible before being taken out. Knowing that an area has additional protection, thereby limiting their damage potential, could certainly be a deterrent.

You mean, they'll go to a playground or church instead? After all, "additional protection" implies there is some other area with less protection. If we have an armed guard on every street corner, there is no additional protection.

 

[bordelais7]

I'm asking again, which of the recent mass shootings would have been prevented by linking mental health evaluations to background checks

"Ban guns!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to this gun control question which doesn't appear to have a good answer.
"Mental health!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to those who find the first answer to be lacking, but who still want to desperately (appear to?) answer the question.

Perhaps doing nothing is not an option, but rushing to action which will (in my opinion) produce empty results simply leaves me feeling empty as well.

 

[Hartsock]

"Ban guns!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to this gun control question which doesn't appear to have a good answer.
"Mental health!" is the lazy, obvious, and generally not well thought through conclusion to those who find the first answer to be lacking, but who still want to desperately (appear to?) answer the question.

Perhaps doing nothing is not an option, but rushing to action which will (in my opinion) produce empty results simply leaves me feeling empty as well.

Lose Lose Lose