Want a gun? Not until police see what's in your social media history.

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, the criminals tend to steal, but in most cases people with guns tend to not secure them appropriately. Stolen guns are often from unsecured locations.

But let's expand this thought a bit further. If the only source of guns, criminals can obtain are from legal sources, what does that suggest of the legal sources. Because of this flaw in our system for so long, we have introduced an inordinate amount of guns to the public which has risked the safety of the community. Again, and I want to stress this... IF THE ONLY SOURCE OF GUNS are from law abiding citizens then what does that suggest of this process and of the original legal owners? I mentioned this in an older comment. Practically, all guns start their lives in a legal manner. We only have ourselves to blame because it's a feedback cycle to combat illegal guns by introducing more legal guns that by a known percentage will become illegal.

That is an interesting point. One thing I can state is that guns are one of the most regulated items that a person can find. There are more laws on the books about guns than one can readily assimilate or make sense of. I know that this is the starting point for many advocates and is often pointed out, but it does go to your point.

I am getting tired. Perhaps further thoughts on this should be left for another day. Like I said, I do not have any practical solutions to offer that would satisfy both sides enough and produce positive results in minimizing gun violence. I do have some thoughts on the subject. Some that you probably would agree with and others that you probably would not. If it were easy, we would not be discussing these things.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So if someone on social media says something like pedophiles should be shot, would they try to ban that person from obtaining a gun?

That's the thing whenever we hear about this kind of stuff. It's so vague and nonspecific it could mean literally anything leaving lots of leeway for interpretation.

It seems to be a great way of liberally wrestling guns out of people without sounding like you're violating the Second Amendment.

 

[suncowiam]

My apologies. I misread that. I would hope that the facts do come out in the criminal justice system, but that is another issue all by itself.

Guns were invented to kill. Whether it was for food or for offense and defense in battle. Cars were not invented for this purpose. It is difficult to conceal a car and sneak it into a crowded theater, for instance. It would be difficult to launch cars out of the window of a tall hotel building at people below.

I think it is fairly obvious that the characteristics of a gun make it a much more efficient, easily carried weapon that is widely available when compared to many other items. Possible exceptions to this are noted, but those are also weapons with the intended purpose of killing. The problem remains that a gun--or knife--can serve many purposes, but the one that concerns people the most is the indiscriminate and criminal use of it to harm another.

Sure. That is a fairly common argument. It has some viability, but the intent is to erase any patina of legitimacy from arguments addressing control of firearms without actually doing that.

I am not a gun worshiper, but I do enjoy using them, studying the history and--if finances allowed me more latitude--collecting them. I do not want to see individual rights to keep and bear them impinged, but I also want solutions to the problems that the criminal use of them have caused.

My use of the word 'worshiper' will likely offend some, but this is the sense that I get from some pro-gun advocates. I once met a young park ranger that upon our first meeting proceeded to show me wallet photos of his guns as if he were showing me pictures of his family. I found that rather amusing. I had not asked about any guns that he might own or made any comments about it. He seems to have felt compelled to share this all on his own without an provocation from me. Perhaps to establish his seriousness or capability at his job. I am not sure. It just struck me as odd and amusing. There was almost an awe to his descriptions of them as if they were objects of veneration. I get that they are exciting. They are fun. They are not toys.

My view of them is more as a tool, though I admit that even I get a little enthusiastic when speaking of some of the more famous or interesting examples. I do not keep or show pictures of them. Only a few people know for sure if I even have any. They are things and I do not revere them the way I see some do. It is a little...not sure how best to put it...weird?

That is an interesting point. One thing I can state is that guns are one of the most regulated items that a person can find. There are more laws on the books about guns than one can readily assimilate or make sense of. I know that this is the starting point for many advocates and is often pointed out, but it does go to your point.

I am getting tired. Perhaps further thoughts on this should be left for another day. Like I said, I do not have any practical solutions to offer that would satisfy both sides enough and produce positive results in minimizing gun violence. I do have some thoughts on the subject. Some that you probably would agree with and others that you probably would not. If it were easy, we would not be discussing these things.

I know there are responsible gun owners in this world. They shouldn't be penalized, but we do not have an adequate process from keeping guns out of illegal activity. Laws are only good if they can be enforced. The government does not do enough to enforce these laws. Some argue that instead of creating new laws, we should just enforce current laws. I agree! And I agree on further control. IMO, it's a huge responsibility in owning a gun. Such things as continued training, continued testing, and the ability to secure are simply not addressed. One can pretty much buy and start using guns without much scrutiny in many cases.

 

[suncowiam]

As you have acknowledged limiting guns means limiting effectiveness and efficiency in scenarios where deadly force is implemented. This means you are limiting a persons ability to defend themselves as well. This is a ability the government simply does not have. Moreover, it is an ability that the federal government was never intended to have.

Yes. I can't argue with you.

But, who are you defending yourself against is the real question.

Keep in mind that the second amendment in spirit is about a corrupt government. If it's a defense against a corrupt government, then IMO, guns are not the solution. We actually already have a solution via the branches of government, but that is another opinion.

If it's against other individuals with illegal ownership of guns. Yes, I can't disagree with you. The issue I have which I've noted before, is the cyclic feedback loop we've been doing to ourselves. We've allowed guns into the public which we know a certain percentage will be illegal and be used for crime. Now our only defense, are guns which adds a continuing percentage of illegal guns to public. This won't end. It's simple math that propagates over generations. Now, if we start reducing guns which won't happen over night, the probability of defending against effective gun power will reduce over time. We know this is plausible because it's true from other nations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know there are responsible gun owners in this world. They shouldn't be penalized, but we do not have an adequate process from keeping guns out of illegal activity. Laws are only good if they can be enforced. The government does not do enough to enforce these laws. Some argue that instead of creating new laws, we should just enforce current laws. I agree! And I agree on further control. IMO, it's a huge responsibility in owning a gun. Such things as continued training, continued testing, and the ability to secure are simply not addressed. One can pretty much buy and start using guns without much scrutiny in many cases.

When people think of why laws are there in the first place, it's a decree from Elites that makes it clear that you're not to be trusted coupled with asserting governmental dominance and acquisition of power over individuals.

Criminals don't really care one way or another. Laws never did and never will mean anything to them.

Every new regulation, every new law is a tried-and-true practice of dominance and reacquisition of power and consolidation of power directed towards certain groups and individuals at the detriment of one to the benefit of another.

That's what it's all about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know there are responsible gun owners in this world. They shouldn't be penalized, but we do not have an adequate process from keeping guns out of illegal activity. Laws are only good if they can be enforced. The government does not do enough to enforce these laws. Some argue that instead of creating new laws, we should just enforce current laws. I agree! And I agree on further control. IMO, it's a huge responsibility in owning a gun. Such things as continued training, continued testing, and the ability to secure are simply not addressed. One can pretty much buy and start using guns without much scrutiny in many cases.

We agree that there is a problem with the ability of some people to break all the laws and use firearms to commit heinous acts like mass shootings of random and vulnerable people. We agree that there are laws already in place that are supposed to be dealing with this and helping to manage the problem. We agree that they are not working and easy access by people intent on death and destruction seems to be escalating in numbers of occurrences and scale of each occurrence. You propose more legislation and, I would assume, bans on certain types of firearms. I am not sure and do not like the idea of banning access to some firearms just because they look scary, while others that are practically the same, but look like traditional hunting arms are ignored. I already accept the laws that are in place, but then, I am not in the group that causes the direct problems under discussion. Now I have to do some serious thinking to determine if the group I am in is creating issues indirectly and should I continue as I am.

I can think of several recent instances over the past several years where failures to communicate limiting conditions of the shooter's right to access arms while the shooter was accessing firearms through legal means resulted in the wrong person gaining that access. The attack on a Texas church congregation comes immediately to mind. If government agencies had talked to each other, that shooter would not have been able to legally attain the weapons he used. I would also point out that it was an armed and prepared, law abiding citizen that was significant in stopping that shooter from fleeing and continuing further destruction. I still think stressing enforcement of existing laws should be a priority before we start disarming law abiding citizens or enacting new legislation.

The question in my my remains. How do we support a reasonable, law abiding citizens right to defend themselves and choose firearms as one means of that defense, as well as the free exercise of any lawful reason for possession and ownership of firearms, while preventing more criminal activity and deaths? Can that be done? I still do not know, but I hope there are some much more intelligent people out there than can field some valid ideas to that end.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When people think of why laws are there in the first place, it's a decree from Elites that makes it clear that you're not to be trusted coupled with asserting governmental dominance and acquisition of power over individuals.

Criminals don't really care one way or another. Laws never did and never will mean anything to them.

Every new regulation, every new law is a tried-and-true practice of dominance and reacquisition of power and consolidation of power directed towards certain groups and individuals at the detriment of one to the benefit of another.

That's what it's all about.

Would you give up a specific type of firearm if it meant that no more large groups of school kids were slaughtered? That people could watch a concert with a much greater reduction in the risk of being a target for a mass shooter. A person could go to church without the expectation of being gunned down. I think it is less about the philosophical side of this and government control than it is about that question.

The philosophical side of it seems more to me whether that would be the result of more laws or not. This could be tested. Mind you, I am not advocating more laws and do not want to relinquish my rights. I am just trying to gain more insight and look at more than just my side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Never was false equivalency not false equivalency now. It's just plain hard facts that the anti-gun crowd skirts and dismisses every single time.

Cars kill people and we keep using them.

Are you suggesting a similar regulatory regime for guns as for cars? Because that would be a great first step:

- no gun would be allowed to be manufactured unless it met stringent safety standards
- every gun user would need a license
- every gun would be licensed and registered
- every gun user would carry mandatory insurance
- the police would literally hide in bushes watching people using guns, then jump out and charge them if they were breaking the law
- huge amounts of government money would go into campaigns to reduce gun use
- huge amounts of government money would go into stopping firearm deaths

Are you in?

 

[LuisDantas]

New bill could allow police to conduct social media searches on gun owners

Social media background checks?

What do you think?

Guns don't kill people. Social media does.

Looks like a fine idea to me.

Gun ownership is not anyone's inherent right in the first place, and it makes sense to look for warning signs in social media.

 

[suncowiam]

We agree that there is a problem with the ability of some people to break all the laws and use firearms to commit heinous acts like mass shootings of random and vulnerable people. We agree that there are laws already in place that are supposed to be dealing with this and helping to manage the problem. We agree that they are not working and easy access by people intent on death and destruction seems to be escalating in numbers of occurrences and scale of each occurrence. You propose more legislation and, I would assume, bans on certain types of firearms. I am not sure and do not like the idea of banning access to some firearms just because they look scary, while others that are practically the same, but look like traditional hunting arms are ignored. I already accept the laws that are in place, but then, I am not in the group that causes the direct problems under discussion. Now I have to do some serious thinking to determine if the group I am in is creating issues indirectly and should I continue as I am.

I can think of several recent instances over the past several years where failures to communicate limiting conditions of the shooter's right to access arms while the shooter was accessing firearms through legal means resulted in the wrong person gaining that access. The attack on a Texas church congregation comes immediately to mind. If government agencies had talked to each other, that shooter would not have been able to legally attain the weapons he used. I would also point out that it was an armed and prepared, law abiding citizen that was significant in stopping that shooter from fleeing and continuing further destruction. I still think stressing enforcement of existing laws should be a priority before we start disarming law abiding citizens or enacting new legislation.

The question in my my remains. How do we support a reasonable, law abiding citizens right to defend themselves and choose firearms as one means of that defense, as well as the free exercise of any lawful reason for possession and ownership of firearms, while preventing more criminal activity and deaths? Can that be done? I still do not know, but I hope there are some much more intelligent people out there than can field some valid ideas to that end.

I can give examples of how other countries have done it, but technically, we can't because of our constitution. So really, it's mute until we amend our constitution.

 

[suncowiam]

When people think of why laws are there in the first place, it's a decree from Elites that makes it clear that you're not to be trusted coupled with asserting governmental dominance and acquisition of power over individuals.

Criminals don't really care one way or another. Laws never did and never will mean anything to them.

Every new regulation, every new law is a tried-and-true practice of dominance and reacquisition of power and consolidation of power directed towards certain groups and individuals at the detriment of one to the benefit of another.

That's what it's all about.

The argument you impose is basically suggesting to throw all our laws out the door because CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.

We should not have laws on stealing, because CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.

We should not have laws on littering, because CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.

We should not have laws on murder, because CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS.

I can go on, but hopefully, you get the point now.

Your perspective can be so narrow...

 

[Curious George]

Yes. I can't argue with you.

But, who are you defending yourself against is the real question.

I am not defending myself against anyone. I simply accept that I should not have the right to encroach upon another in this regard.

Keep in mind that the second amendment in spirit is about a corrupt government. If it's a defense against a corrupt government, then IMO, guns are not the solution. We actually already have a solution via the branches of government, but that is another opinion.

That is simply not my or your right to decide. Any regulation we choose should be for a compelling reason and narrowly tailored toward that end.

If it's against other individuals with illegal ownership of guns. Yes, I can't disagree with you. The issue I have which I've noted before, is the cyclic feedback loop we've been doing to ourselves. We've allowed guns into the public which we know a certain percentage will be illegal and be used for crime. Now our only defense, are guns which adds a continuing percentage of illegal guns to public. This won't end. It's simple math that propagates over generations. Now, if we start reducing guns which won't happen over night, the probability of defending against effective gun power will reduce over time. We know this is plausible because it's true from other nations.

And while I understand your points, regulation that is not narrowly tailored for a compelling interest is simply unacceptable.

 

[suncowiam]

I am not defending myself against anyone. I simply except that I should not have the right to encroach upon another in this regard.

That is simply not my or your right to decide. Any regulation we choose should be for a compelling reason and narrowly tailored toward that end.


And while I understand your points, regulation that is not narrowly tailored for a compelling interest is simply unacceptable.

Well, I can't technically disagree with you given our laws and the Constitution. You and I already knew that. I will lose every argument if we have to assume the validity of the Constitution.

So, what's the point of discussing this with me, if I have to technically agree with you?

I do have various rights actually to base opinions and formalize new laws based on accepted methods of change but that's not what we're discussing right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can give examples of how other countries have done it, but technically, we can't because of our constitution. So really, it's mute until we amend our constitution.

I know how Australia has engaged in gun control following the result of a mass shooting. I can see how New Zealand is going to be doing it for much the same cause.

We have the Constitution and a gun culture in this country. If you are for the control, management or elimination of guns, fighting against a Constitutionally established right is tough enough, but fighting a culture that views any regulation as too much regulation and against their rights makes it very difficult to address even reasonable points. Of course, this sort of blanket obstinance applies to parts of the anti-gun movement as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not defending myself against anyone. I simply except that I should not have the right to encroach upon another in this regard.

That is simply not my or your right to decide. Any regulation we choose should be for a compelling reason and narrowly tailored toward that end.


And while I understand your points, regulation that is not narrowly tailored for a compelling interest is simply unacceptable.

I am not sure I understand. You do not think you have a right to involve yourself in supporting, modifying or rejecting the very laws that 'we the people' enacted as the basis for our government?

I thought I should add that I am not talking about the indiscriminate, arbitrary rejection of existing laws by any random individual out of dislike for a particular law or laws. Nothing like deciding that one does not like the laws on murder and one is going to do it anyway in defiance of the law. I am talking about being actively engaged as a citizen in working towards the legitimate establishment, modification or rejection of a law through established and legal means.

I agree that regulations should be for compelling reasons and designed to address those reasons justly, specifically and with as few unintended consequences as possible. That ideal is laudable, but as a rule, difficult to achieve.

I suppose it would depend on the scope of the regulation. Regulations against killing each other are going to be broad, but constrained internally by definitions for what qualifies as murder, manslaughter, negligence, accident or self defense and the ability to argue based on the evidence, the scope of the law and the definitions contained within the law.

On the other hand, laws governing occupational safety would not usually be applied to private individuals that are not engaged in the manufacture and distribution of goods. Now I am wondering if the scope of those laws can be applied to the illegal drug trade. Perhaps. We need a lawyer to weigh in on this discussion and all the sidebars.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I can't technically disagree with you given our laws and the Constitution. You and I already knew that. I will lose every argument if we have to assume the validity of the Constitution.

So, what's the point of discussing this with me, if I have to technically agree with you?

I do have various rights actually to base opinions and formalize new laws based on accepted methods of change but that's not what we're discussing right?

What are your thoughts on the rights of an individual to not keep or bear arms? I say that people have that right and the right is protected by the Constitution just as other rights are protected. Even if the Constitution does not explicitly state that in any wording. Keeping in mind the Constitution does not specifically address the existence of an air force either, yet we have one that exists on the basis of the Constitution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you suggesting a similar regulatory regime for guns as for cars? Because that would be a great first step:

These rules may not swap 1:1 to gun manufacture and ownership. Cars are not manufactured or normally intended for use as weapons and while they can be, do not have the same characteristics that make firearms a better choice for that role. The question of the role of manufacturers is one that could probably be pursued to some success, but this pursuit is in an environment that is already regulation saturated. However, it seems a similar situation to manufacturers of products that are significant sources of pollution or have recycling capacity. The tobacco industry may be a model for some efforts. That still does not insure the success of the real goal. To me, the real goal is the reduction of the criminal use of firearms. That does not have to mean that the right to own them is infringed.

- no gun would be allowed to be manufactured unless it met stringent safety standards

I am assuming you mean standards that would be in place to minimize the illegal use of it and not the quality control mechanisms of manufacturing to ensure a reasonably safe product when used as recommended. I think those conditions do exist and are functioning reasonably well under normal supply and demand economics.

- every gun user would need a license

I can see every gun owner, but every user might be a bit much. There are ranges where you can rent guns. Having to get a license every time or even a blanket license just to use something a few times seems prohibitive. Though I can envision means to overcome that. Like the range be licensed and users operate under that license, but that might put undo liability on the range. Unfortunately, we could go back and forth on the minutia forever. We already have rules that disallow ownership and possession by certain classes of people like some mentally ill people and convicted criminals. So licensing does not seem on the face of it, unreasonable.

- every gun would be licensed and registered

I thought this was already done in many places. At least for handguns. I am going to have to review my basic laws it seems.

- every gun user would carry mandatory insurance

I am not sure how that would limit criminal use of the gun, but this benefit is offered in some fashion by the much vilified NRA. Not everything they do is pure evil.

- the police would literally hide in bushes watching people using guns, then jump out and charge them if they were breaking the law

No. No police state thank you. It is not even a good thing on the face of it. I think we could better use that resource in more practical and legal ways.

- huge amounts of government money would go into campaigns to reduce gun use

That is all of our money. Not all of us are going to want to spend it like that. There may be some reasonable ways to finance this, but just throwing more of our money at it without just cause is not one of those ways in my opinion. I would be open to the idea of presenting balanced, fact-based information to people so that they can decide for themselves. This may make them secure their weapons better. That would be a benefit.

- huge amounts of government money would go into stopping firearm deaths

I may be in on this, if the amount of money is used properly and is not so huge that it is disproportionate to what it would achieve. I would be hard pressed to say that the value of 20 first graders is so low that it would not be worth it to stop the death of even one more, but we should not break the beast of burdens back to save its legs either. That beast of burden being the American tax payer. The government is supposed to provide for the common defense and support the general welfare. This falls under that in my opinion.

Are you in?

I am not sure that the Constitution is as big a barrier to achieving some reasonable success at reducing gun crimes as is the barrier of the culture that subsists on guns. Some of this seems practical to a point and some is not practical at all. I still cannot see why review and support of existing laws should not be a big part of the solution. These government people work for us. Why not campaign to get them working on that. Maybe that is naive.

 

[suncowiam]

What are your thoughts on the rights of an individual to not keep or bear arms? I say that people have that right and the right is protected by the Constitution just as other rights are protected. Even if the Constitution does not explicitly state that in any wording. Keeping in mind the Constitution does not specifically address the existence of an air force either, yet we have one that exists on the basis of the Constitution.

That's the problem with the Constitution. It's a relic of the past that is dependent on translation. I call it the Bible of the US. We regulate our lives based around this relic. The issue is that not everyone can translate it the same way. It funnels through the supreme court and when you have judgment based on very close counts, then I have very serious issues on this process.

I have no problem with people not wanting to bear arms. That's not the same as suggesting they did not want to defend themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you suggesting a similar regulatory regime for guns as for cars? Because that would be a great first step:

- no gun would be allowed to be manufactured unless it met stringent safety standards
- every gun user would need a license
- every gun would be licensed and registered
- every gun user would carry mandatory insurance
- the police would literally hide in bushes watching people using guns, then jump out and charge them if they were breaking the law
- huge amounts of government money would go into campaigns to reduce gun use
- huge amounts of government money would go into stopping firearm deaths

Are you in?

Except the cops hiding in the bushes part. They need to focus on doing actual policing, not another excuse to sit around and abuse their power when they feel like "policing."
I'd also add a federal database of guns and gun owners, along with laws to mandate the reporting of stolen fire arms. And streamlining laws to do away with state laws that turn legal possession into illegal possession once state borders have been crossed. I'd also emphasis restrictions on handguns and semi-auto rifles (keeping automatic and assault rifles illegal) and not place as much restrictions on rifles and shotguns, which are not used in crime nearly as often (and I suspect mostly owned by farmers and hunters). And, for cars as well, require people periodically be re-evaluated for their fitness to own a gun.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's the problem with the Constitution. It's a relic of the past that is dependent on translation.

If we were all "true originalists," we would have updated and renewed our Constitution several times since it was ratified, as per Jefferson's urging. It was intentionally left open, living, non-static, all so the living would not be governed by the dead and each generation could address the new issues and problems they face, but we have failed for over 200 years to take advantage of that wisdom.

I have no problem with people not wanting to bear arms. That's not the same as suggesting they did not want to defend themselves.

Definitely. I don't have a gun for defense, but I'm capable of defending myself, and have in the past when it became necessary.