Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[Irvrobinson]

Today, even in USA, one has to pass a test to get a driver license. Why not for firearms as well?

Because driving is not a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed". Some jurisdictions, New York State and especially New York City, do require licenses for gun possession, and they charge fees for the licenses, but the Supreme Court has wiggled out of ruling on these licenses. So far they have not ruled these licenses unconstitutional, but I suspect that's coming soon with Trump's appointees. Anyway, with ~400 million civilian guns in the US, and record numbers being sold since Biden was elected, controls at this point, IMO, are more for a feel-good discussion than results. The situation looks hopeless.

 

[Swerd]

For me background checks (what should included is a thread for itself, I guess) is only one part for owning and using firearms. The other part is having a license to own and use firearms where one has to show firearms competence through tests and practice.

Today, even in USA, one has to pass a test to get a driver license. Why not for firearms as well?

In most state in the US, you must also have liability insurance to have a driver's license. Why not require the same for gun owners?

 

[highfigh]

Because driving is not a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed". Some jurisdictions, New York State and especially New York City, do require licenses for gun possession, and they charge fees for the licenses, but the Supreme Court has wiggled out of ruling on these licenses. So far they have not ruled these licenses unconstitutional, but I suspect that's coming soon with Trump's appointees. Anyway, with ~400 million civilian guns in the US, and record numbers being sold since Biden was elected, controls at this point, IMO, are more for a feel-good discussion than results. The situation looks hopeless.

True, but if peoples' safety/lives are at stake, the requirement to prove proficiency doesn't require a licence to own, just that people become proficient. I never wrote anything about licensing guns or gun owners, just as a driver's license comes with no requirement to own a car- it only shows that the potential driver knows the rules of the road and that they can control a car well enough to pass the test.

I find it very strange that on-road test waiver is being mentioned for undocumented aliens, as well as giving them a driver's license. There's no thoughts about their possible lack of ability to read anything, let along English. There's no requirement that they have ever driven a car in their lives, yet people in the US bitch about being required to know how to use a gun without killing everyone in the county because they can't intentionally hit a target.

And the shootings just continue......

 

[Swerd]

How do we solve for the mental health aspect? No idea. Very complex subject.

For starters, we have to admit that doing little or nothing about mental health care has been an abject failure.

In the 1980s it became common to close state-run mental institutions, and release the mentally ill en masse, a practice that freed them to become homeless while being both mentally ill and untreated. Once state mental institutions were closed, health insurance companies failed to address the problem. Of course, most of those institutionalized mental patients had no job and no health insurance.

A responsible and effective effort at addressing mental health care should not be limited to the mostly stalemated debate about gun control.

 

[highfigh]

What we all want is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mental defectives; but, here in Louisville, KY, with 59 gun homicides so far this year, it appears the laws to keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers and drug traffickers is not working. In other words, straw purchase laws are not being prosecuted and thus this question, why not?

Prosecuting people makes them sad and gives activists something to bitch about. I have yet to see an activist who complains about "excessive incarceration' admit that people are arrested and locked up because they committed some kind of crime, sometimes a laundry list of crimes. Some couldn't go fifteen minutes without and killing/being killed within hours of release isn't as uncommon as one might think.

I don't want to see innocent people targeted by the police or locked up for crimes they didn't commit but if people won't testify for fear that retaliation will result if they appear in court, the guilty will go free and that comes at an incredibly high cost. Witness tampering and intimidation happen frequently.

 

[Trell]

Prosecuting people makes them sad and gives activists something to bitch about. I have yet to see an activist who complains about "excessive incarceration' admit that people are arrested and locked up because they committed some kind of crime, sometimes a laundry list of crimes.
...

Having fun hacking your straw man?

 

[highfigh]

In most state in the US, you must also have liability insurance to have a driver's license. Why not require the same for gun owners?

It's available.

It should be available via a rider if the gun is kept at home, but you know the insurance companies would do everything possible to get out of paying. If someone carries outside of the home, all bets are off. I seriously doubt the insurance industry really wants to insure guns/gun owners.

The cost I have seen for someone who shoots someone else is in the $100K range (bond, legal defense, court costs/expert witnesses, etc), unless a civil suit occurs and that's for defensive use. A criminal without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of will never be able to pay enough restitution to make the victim close to 'whole'.

 

[highfigh]

Having fun hacking your straw man?

Look into it- those are real complaints.

California gives 76,000 inmates, mostly violent criminals, chance for earlier release amid prison population cuts – media

California is said to be setting the stage for the early release of as many as 76,000 prison inmates, including 63,000 who were convicted of violent crimes, as Governor Gavin Newsom furthers his efforts to reduce incarceration.

www.rt.com

Then, there's this- we have a big problem here-

What Percentage of Criminals Are Repeat Offenders?

In the United States, around 67.8 percent of criminals were arrested again within 3 years of release. The research involved 404,638 convicts in 30 states. Around 76.6 percent of the prisoners were rearrested within 5 years of release, and approximately 56.7 got arrested again within 1 year of...

www.reference.com

 

[panteragstk]

For starters, we have to admit that doing little or nothing about mental health care has been an abject failure. In the 1980s it became common to release the mentally ill from institutions, a practice that freed them to become both mentally ill and homeless. Once state sponsored mental institutions were closed, health insurance companies failed to address the problem. A responsible and effective effort at addressing mental health care should not be limited to the mostly stalemated debate about gun control.

Totally agree. Mental health as a whole is pretty much ignored here because of some random stigma I wasn't aware of, but apparently exists.

Is this issue MORE important because of all the gun violence?? Yes, I think it is. That doesn't mean that without gun violence it wouldn't be important. It's still a HUGE issue and needs to be addressed.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Because driving is not a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed". Some jurisdictions, New York State and especially New York City, do require licenses for gun possession, and they charge fees for the licenses, but the Supreme Court has wiggled out of ruling on these licenses. So far they have not ruled these licenses unconstitutional, but I suspect that's coming soon with Trump's appointees. Anyway, with ~400 million civilian guns in the US, and record numbers being sold since Biden was elected, controls at this point, IMO, are more for a feel-good discussion than results. The situation looks hopeless.

I'm curious - if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, how is it constitutional to have weapons bans placed on people with criminal records? Is there anything in the constitution making such exceptions?

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm curious - if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, how is it constitutional to have weapons bans placed on people with criminal records? Is there anything in the constitution making such exceptions?

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any means.

We also withhold voting rights from convicted felons in many states, with the implicit sanction of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Felons' Right To Vote In Florida

The court's refusal to reverse a lower court order likely will prevent hundreds of thousands of people from voting in the November election.

www.npr.org

I can't think of any state that allows incarcerated felons to vote. So constitutional rights do have limits. The ridiculous thing is that you lose your right to vote even if you're convicted of a white collar crime, like equity trading on insider information or hacking. It seems like if you're convicted of a felony it means you're no longer a first-class citizen.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I'm not a constitutional scholar by any means.

We also withhold voting rights from convicted felons in many states, with the implicit sanction of the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Felons' Right To Vote In Florida

The court's refusal to reverse a lower court order likely will prevent hundreds of thousands of people from voting in the November election.

www.npr.org

I can't think of any state that allows incarcerated felons to vote. So constitutional rights do have limits. The ridiculous thing is that you lose your right to vote even if you're convicted of a white collar crime, like equity trading on insider information or hacking. It seems like if you're convicted of a felony it means you're no longer a first-class citizen.

So, it's quite clear that the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed can be, and is, infringed upon in certain circumstances. Therefore, I can't understand why a universal federal requirement for background checks and licensing cannot be implemented without being declared "unconstitutional".

 

[highfigh]

I'm curious - if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, how is it constitutional to have weapons bans placed on people with criminal records? Is there anything in the constitution making such exceptions?

It's not just that they have a criminal record- many crimes don't disqualify them but violent crimes do.

Firearms Checks (NICS) | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) conducts background checks on people who want to own a firearm or explosive, as required by law.

www.fbi.gov

 

[highfigh]

Totally agree. Mental health as a whole is pretty much ignored here because of some random stigma I wasn't aware of, but apparently exists.

Is this issue MORE important because of all the gun violence?? Yes, I think it is. That doesn't mean that without gun violence it wouldn't be important. It's still a HUGE issue and needs to be addressed.

You weren't aware of the stigma? That has existed for a very long time. Also, HIPAA makes getting info about someone's health more difficult, which should be modified, IMO. If it's something as important as mental health, safety for others needs to take precedence over some privacy, but that's a slippery slope because it's not difficult to access official information sources and that makes the info dangerous.

I think that the four main causes of gun deaths are:

Carelessness
Mental illness
Stupidity WRT storage and handling
Criminals illegally obtaining guns and being careless/stupid (I'll be adding a post about this)

The list could become very long if someone were to think about it for only a few minutes.

 

[highfigh]

So, it's quite clear that the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed can be, and is, infringed upon in certain circumstances. Therefore, I can't understand why a universal federal requirement for background checks and licensing cannot be implemented without being declared "unconstitutional".

Why would any reasonable person want someone with a violent past or violent tendencies to have a gun?

The problem with barring people from having guns: how can they be compelled to obey the order from the court?

I mentioned a 3 year old who shot himself and the link shows how that happened-

I want judges who make stupid decisions like the ones that led to this, to be held responsible.

Suspect charged in accidental shooting death of 3-year-old was barred from possessing guns

The gun that a 3-year-old boy unintentionally killed himself with on Saturday belonged to a relative who was out on bail from armed robbery charges.

www.jsonline.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

It's not just that they have a criminal record- many crimes don't disqualify them but violent crimes do.

Firearms Checks (NICS) | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) conducts background checks on people who want to own a firearm or explosive, as required by law.

www.fbi.gov

Yeah, I get that. But, the point behind my question still stands - that the "uninfringeable" right is actually "infringeable". And, if that right can be infringed, it's just a political question as to the degree of infringement that is instituted.

 

[highfigh]

So, it's quite clear that the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed can be, and is, infringed upon in certain circumstances. Therefore, I can't understand why a universal federal requirement for background checks and licensing cannot be implemented without being declared "unconstitutional".

From the link-

"At the same time, there is strong support in Canada — at both a popular and a judicial level — for collateral consequences that are targeted to the crime, including lifetime bans on the possession of firearms for many violent crimes or serious drug offenses."

"While it should be noted that support for the registry is weaker in rural areas and a bill currently before Parliament proposes its repeal, there is no serious opposition to the idea of banning guns from individuals convicted of violent offenses."

"Conceptually and legally, there are key differences between voting restrictions and firearms prohibitions as consequences of criminal conviction. There is no Canadian equivalent of the Second Amendment. Unlike voting rights, which are clearly guaranteed to all citizens, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right."

The View From Canada on Felons' Rights - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

In theory, freedoms come with some level of responsibility. Unfortunately, far too many Americans disagree.

 

[highfigh]

Yeah, I get that. But, the point behind my question still stands - that the "uninfringeable" right is actually "infringeable". And, if that right can be infringed, it's just a political question as to the degree of infringement that is instituted.

At some point, rights just need to be taken away after committing certain crimes. When someone can't obey laws, some kind of penalty is in order and when someone uses a gun to kill during the commission of a crime or if they use it intentionally, they should never be allowed to possess another. Spraying lead has become a first choice when a conflict arises and people really need to realize that they should just walk away. IMO, if someone is found guilty of intentional homicide and it's not a wrongful conviction, they should stay in prison. I don't think justice is served when someone is released after the minimum imposed time but that begs the questions:

How can we get people to stop killing as a casual act?
What should be done with all of the murderers?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Why would any reasonable person want someone with a violent past or violent tendencies to have a gun?

The problem with barring people from having guns: how can they be compelled to obey the order from the court?

I mentioned a 3 year old who shot himself and the link shows how that happened-

I want judges who make stupid decisions like the ones that led to this, to be held responsible.

Suspect charged in accidental shooting death of 3-year-old was barred from possessing guns

The gun that a 3-year-old boy unintentionally killed himself with on Saturday belonged to a relative who was out on bail from armed robbery charges.

www.jsonline.com

Well, of course no reasonable person would want a violent person to have permission to have a firearm. I was just making the point that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and can be infringed. Therefore, I can see no constitutional impediment to compulsory background checks and licensing - in ALL circumstances - as a condition for permission to possess a firearm. Judicial decisions to the contrary are clearly politically motivated.

And, no question, such requirements won't prevent criminals being criminals, or stupid people being stupid.

 

[GO-NAD!]

From the link-

"At the same time, there is strong support in Canada — at both a popular and a judicial level — for collateral consequences that are targeted to the crime, including lifetime bans on the possession of firearms for many violent crimes or serious drug offenses."

"While it should be noted that support for the registry is weaker in rural areas and a bill currently before Parliament proposes its repeal, there is no serious opposition to the idea of banning guns from individuals convicted of violent offenses."

"Conceptually and legally, there are key differences between voting restrictions and firearms prohibitions as consequences of criminal conviction. There is no Canadian equivalent of the Second Amendment. Unlike voting rights, which are clearly guaranteed to all citizens, gun ownership is a privilege, not a right."

The View From Canada on Felons' Rights - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

In theory, freedoms come with some level of responsibility. Unfortunately, far too many Americans disagree.

Let there be no doubt - I certainly support banning anyone convicted of serious violent crimes or drug offences (they often go hand-in-hand) from owning firearms.