The truly horrible House gun bill

[M14 Shooter]

So screw the Constitution huh? Yea… you’re a Trumper

Says she who ignores the 2nd Amendment.

 

[miketx]

So screw the Constitution huh? Yea… you’re a Trumper

Howler commie sez what?

 

[Failzero]

Howler commie sez what?

Stop that , those of us who like our chicken chunky get excited

 

[AZrailwhale]

Understood. But do you think in all circumstances we should wait until people are dead to take action against a nutjob? Honest question, not trying to piss anybody off, but somebody calls the cops and the subject is arrested because the cops believe he or she is a danger to himself or someone else. You wouldn't confiscate that person's guns, even for a short time, maybe a week or 2? Otherwise the subject gets out of jail on bail the next day and still has access to his guns. You okay with that?

Ultimately it comes down to this: should we try to prevent a nutjob from having a gun? That's why we require a background check in the 1st place. Should we take steps to try to disarm such a person for a short time until due process is accomplished? I get it, innocent until proven guilty, but nobody is being convicted here. Can we not live without our guns for even a little while? I suspect that the majority of Americans would rather see a temporary confiscation until an individual is found to be a threat to himself or others or not, in a court of law. If the prosecution cannot show reasonable cause for why the individual should not get his/her guns back then those guns are returned and due process was served. Innocent until proven guilty, as it should be.

The due process needs to happen BEFORE any property is seized. If there is enough evidence that a person is a threat to himself or others, an immediate hearing should be held to incarcerate him for observation. The weapons aren't the threat, the person is. I've been through an acrimonious divorce and if this kind of law existed then, my ex or her mother would have used it against me. They did everything else including going underground when the judge got tired of them violating visitation orders and was going to award me custody of my daughter. In many jurisdictions once the police get their hands on privately-owned weapons, they never are returned. They get "lost" or "are inadvertently destroyed" or the DA and police keep inventing new hoops for the owner to jump through at great expense to recover his property.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And there is a perfect example of how Republicans value their guns more than their children. Any attempt at regulating guns is met with a resounding “No”.

Raising the age for buying guns to 21.
A lot of shootings are committed by people under that age. 59% of school shootings since 1970 were carried out by people under 21.

Source: Data show most school shootings carried out by young adults, teens

Red Flag Laws…while you can’t be totally sure that those who threatened mass showings would have carried them out, evidence supporting red flag laws is compelling.

"Red flag" laws test finding that mass shootings are preventable

Bipartisan gun reform talks in the Senate include a measure that would incentivize more states to enact such laws

www.axios.com

• A 2019 study examining the 15 deadliest public mass shootings in the U.S. between 1998 and 2018 found that "most incidents were indeed preventable based on information known about offenders in advance, and that the deadliest mass shooters exhibited more warning signs and were more often reported to law enforcement than other active shooters."

Mandating safe storage of guns would prevent children easily accessing guns and inadvertently shooting someone or deliberately doing so.


Adam Lanza was 20, and took his mother’s guns, after shooting her, to shoot up Newtown.

Salvador Ramos was 18, and legally bought his two AR15-style rifles the moment he turned 18. Multiple red flags on social media, conversations with classmates, history of torturing animals.

Nikolas Cruz, 19 yrs old. Multiple red flags and a long history of mental and disciplinary problems.

And law enforcement was aware of the problems and chose not to address them. What makes you think they would respond to "red flag" complaints in any effective manner?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Idiot. If she had the guns locked in a safe he couldn’t have gotten hold of them to kill her.


Under current law what could they have done and what law would have allowed it?




That is part of the problem. On the other hand it is very difficult to commit people involuntarily. You are justifying removing rights (freedom) by involuntarily committing a person rather than removing another right (firearms) for the same reason. If it is a slippery slope for you in regards to firearms…well why not for freedom?


Does your vocabulary ever extend beyond “dumbass” and “moron”?



Florida didn’t have a red flag law prior to Parkland, in fact it was Parkland that finally forced it. Since then, it has been used 3,500 times (as of 2020).

Florida 'red flag' gun law used 3,500 times since Parkland

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — A 23-year-old man who posted on Facebook, “I don't know why I don't go on a killing spree

apnews.com

She DID have her weapons locked in a safe. The killer managed to learn the combination, unlocked the safe and used one of her own guns to kill her.

 

[Failzero]

She DID have her weapons locked in a safe. The killer managed to learn the combination, unlocked the safe and used one of her own guns to kill her.

The Killer was on two types of SSRIs too

 

[AZrailwhale]

The domestic violence decision would have to be on the cops on the scene IMHO. If they arrested the person, then they must've thought the persons was dangerous enough to take into custody to prevent future violence. If so, I think that right there is good enough reason to confiscate any guns. And if not, well then they leave the person there without confiscating the guns.

If the person's mental state is in doubt, I would think the cops are not up to making that call. If they take the person to a mental ward or facility then a mental health expert would have to make the call over any weapons confiscation. And obviously any confiscation ought to be reviewed after 14 days or whatever the period of time is before the person can make his/her case to get his/her weapons back.

Do you not think we ought to try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm to themselves or others? Or do we just let shit happen?

In most jurisdictions, if the police respond to a domestic violence complaint SOMEONE is going to jail.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Irrelevant

You are one person out of 300 million

Guns are inherently more dangerous than knives or clubs and have no other use than to do damage to humans

You're an idiot. Guns have many uses other than damaging humans. As for them being more dangerous, I'm a veteran and military personnel are trained to kill with pretty much anything that comes to hand. If I want to kill someone, I can easily use a hammer, rope, wire, hatchet, bow, screwdriver, car, propane tank, chain saw, pruning saw, tree branch or even an easily obtained rock. One of the first things I was taught in Basic Training was there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men and they were going to train us to be dangerous.

 

[Lesh]

You're an idiot. Guns have many uses other than damaging humans. As for them being more dangerous, I'm a veteran and military personnel are trained to kill with pretty much anything that comes to hand. If I want to kill someone, I can easily use a hammer, rope, wire, hatchet, bow, screwdriver, car, propane tank, chain saw, pruning saw, tree branch or even an easily obtained rock. One of the first things I was taught in Basic Training was there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men and they were going to train us to be dangerous.

The average person can kill and injure dozens with a gun....not so much with a tree branch

 

[Captain Caveman]

Come take mine.

Oh shut up you stupid tit

 

[miketx]

Oh shut up you stupid tit

Come take 'em boy.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Come take 'em boy.

Someone has slapped the back of your head and knocked the sailor's cock out No one is taking any guns, you bellend.

At least grasp the fucking subject of gun regulation you utter thick moron.

 

[Failzero]

Someone has slapped the back of your head and knocked the sailor's cock out No one is taking any guns, you bellend.

At least grasp the fucking subject of gun regulation you utter thick moron.

Australia & New Zealand thought no one would take their Guns too

 

[miketx]

Someone has slapped the back of your head and knocked the sailor's cock out No one is taking any guns, you bellend.

At least grasp the fucking subject of gun regulation you utter thick moron.

That was a sailors cock? My mom told me it was a polish sausage!

 

[M14 Shooter]

The average person can kill and injure dozens with a gun....

Of course - that's why our right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution,

 

[miketx]

The average person can kill and injure dozens with a gun....not so much with a tree branch

What we need to ban is you filth.

 

[Lesh]

What we need to ban is you filth.

Yea...ban me fuckhead

 

[miketx]

Yea...ban me fuckhead

k

 

[Captain Caveman]

Australia & New Zealand thought no one would take their Guns too

Fucking thick fuck American. He hasn't a clue with 1776. What's up with you retards on your own history. Don't try this macho crap on me, or I'll just spank you on your own "only a couple hundred years" history.

You should be speaking French to honour your saviours. You've never won anything, that's why you need to try and macho your history up.