Sensible Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Hunt5877, Aug 8, 2019.

  1. Hunt5877

    Hunt5877 Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Jan 27, 2019
    Just happened to catch Fox news and was listening to Trish something or other talk about how she supported an all out assault weapons ban and background checks and red flag laws.

    Her support of red flag laws was supported by the fact that 81% of school shooters announced on social media that they intended to or wanted to "shoot up" a school and red flag laws would have stopped this. My thought here is that if those statistics are right how many people saw or knew about these post and did nothing anyway.

    Just to summarize folks, murder is already illegal. Sounds like we all have a social and moral obligation after one of these senseless crimes happens but in 81% as cited nobody felt an obligation to do anything to prevent or so the story goes.

    Am I crazy to assume red flag laws won't fix this problem? Rant over....
  2. ReaperCustom45

    ReaperCustom45 Well-Known Member

    Aug 7, 2019
    Red flag laws wont help anyways. The Florida shooter was reported to the police and FBI several times, and he even had a record of mental problems anyways. The government didn't act, they let him do it. He shouldn't have been able to even buy guns, but the Florida PD had a deal with the schools that they wouldn't arrest students because that made both of them look bad. Problem isn't laws we don't have, it's that we don't enforce the ones we do have.

  3. Mtek

    Mtek Well-Known Member

    Aug 7, 2019
    I think some of the aggressive anti-gun people would abuse a red flag law and harass firearm users and enthusiasts. I can imagine them flagging anyone who posts on Facebook about their recent hunting trip, or posting a pic of their new 1911, etc.
    simonp, boatdoc, Ethanol Red and 6 others like this.
  4. Bender

    Bender Supporting Addict Supporting Addict

    Aug 15, 2011
    I hate to say it, but something needs to happen.
    There needs to be a compromise or all will be lost.
    We just may go the way of Australia
    ZArugby, simonp, Badabing11 and 4 others like this.
  5. Kip

    Kip Sir Kip Esquire

    Apr 12, 2016
    Just read an article on "red flag laws". I wrongly assumed a subject was detained,evaluated,etc. Nope. Said subject has firearms removed,and is pretty much free to go until court. Meanwhile,our highly agitated friend,still has his car,guessing a gas can,and that Ronco knife set he bought when he couldn't sleep one night. This law was engineered to take firearms,nothing else.
  6. Bender

    Bender Supporting Addict Supporting Addict

    Aug 15, 2011
    When the guns are gone, they will take the knives, then the sticks, then the will never end
  7. B81

    B81 Well-Known Member

    Aug 12, 2018
    We need to get better clarity on how the Red Flag laws will be implemented.

    If the Red Flag laws are such that anybody can flag anybody for any reason, then it will be no different than a gun confiscation. The people who want to take guns out of our hands will simply point their finger at every gun owner they can find and say, "he's a threat!"

    If the Red Flag laws are such that you have to go through a formal hearing before the guns are taken or the person is detained, then it may be too slow of a process to actually stop a shooter.

    In either case, there is the problem of what deciding behavior patterns and personality traits constitute a threat indicator? Also, if a person displays a threat indicator, do we deprive him of his rights immediately, or just watch more closely and wait to see if he displays more indicators?

    Ah, what if we just allow the accused to appeal an accusation, and if proven innocent, he gets his guns back? Obviously, that's an unfair way to treat an innocent person. Furthermore, some people may not be able to afford the legal fees of an appeal.

    Likewise, for the idea of making it criminal to flag a person on false grounds. Someone still has to pay the legal fees of the lawsuit. Also, where will the burden of proof fall? Are we going to assume that the person who incorrectly flags a person was acting with malevolence (guilty until proven innocent) or are going to assume that it was accidental unless it can be proven otherwise? The latter case is going to be hard to do, because you're having to prove motive. If we're too draconian with people who give incorrect information, then no one will feel safe flagging anyone.

    In concept, Red Flag laws sound reasonable. However, implementing Red Flag laws in a way that (1) prevents false positives, (2) encourages people to use the system, and (3) still allows for a rapid response by law enforcement to prevent an actual attacker, is going to be very difficult.
    KS95B40, simonp, isialk and 7 others like this.
  8. ReaperCustom45

    ReaperCustom45 Well-Known Member

    Aug 7, 2019
    We've been compromising for almost 100 years, it has never done any good, nor will it. We will just keep handing them victories over and over until we have nothing left but pointy sticks. These people don't want to "compromise", they want to take away our ability to resist a tyrannical government, and have us rely on the government so much that we can't live without them. There is no compromise with them. You keep handing them small wins and there wont be a war to fight pretty soon.
    gunn, cliff58, KS95B40 and 13 others like this.
  9. B81

    B81 Well-Known Member

    Aug 12, 2018
    Luckily my fingers nails will grow back after they yank those out.
  10. Lou1

    Lou1 Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Sep 1, 2018
    You are 100% correct. If it was truly an issue of believing that someone might be a danger to their selves or others there is already a mechanism in place to deal with them. It’s known as a 72 hour psychiatric hold during which the person can be evaluated.
    1911 dawg, boatdoc, DRYHUMOR and 6 others like this.
  11. krunchnik

    krunchnik THE CROW Supporting Addict

    Mar 6, 2012
    The only way that can happen is if we let them-don't forget about that pesky 2nd Amendment that they would have to remove
    KS95B40, SVG, boatdoc and 1 other person like this.
  12. B81

    B81 Well-Known Member

    Aug 12, 2018
    That would make more sense than just taking firearms.
    livinthelife, FWoo45 and Babboonbobo like this.
  13. B81

    B81 Well-Known Member

    Aug 12, 2018
    Well, hypothetically, they could just reinterpret the 2nd Amendment -- which is what the anti-gun community has been doing for years.
    switchback likes this.
  14. Colorado Sonny

    Colorado Sonny Deo Volente Supporting Addict

    Sep 25, 2015
    The problem here with mass shootings is the we live in a fallen society. Jesus and His words and ways have been banned by secular society. Without the hope and love in His word, their is no hope. Gun laws won't mean squat when people start pulling out knives, bats, pipes, etc. Notice when Peter pulled a sword and cut off Malcuse's ear outside the Garden of Gethsemane when they brought a cohort of soldiers, (600) to arrest Jesus!

    I can see 25 years in the future when an eight year old is arrested for not having a bat permit on his possession on the way to little league practice!
    Mike A, switchback, SVG and 8 others like this.
  15. Glock2740

    Glock2740 1911 addict Staff Member Moderator

    Aug 16, 2011
    There’s more than enough laws against pro gun law abiding citizens already.
    Try enforcing those.
    These teachers, students, parents and others need to be held responsible for the violence that they let happen.
    Step up and take some responsibility.
    I know that’s a fading quality in this society anymore, but if you have the stupidity to blame gun makers for things bad people do with their product, then same applies across the board.
    Drive drunk and kill someone? Car and liquor manufacturers pay and suffer the consequences.
    Run someone over while texting?
    Phone and car manufacturers pay the price.
    Student tells class they’re going to kill everyone?
    School district officials, teacher and all students who knew all pay the price.

    Sound silly? Sound stupid? Sound ridiculous?

    ANY kind of gun/mag/Ammo ban against LAW ABIDING CITIZENS is complete and utter nonsensensical bullshit!

  16. Usp45ct

    Usp45ct Well-Known Member

    Aug 24, 2012

    Nope, no compromise. Shall not be infringed means don’t compromise. When people take an oath to defend the constitution, there is no compromise....nor should there be. Any compromise cheapens the lives of those that died willingly so we could be free; from 1775 through today. fudge that ****.

    ...and for what, so the the same douche bag that was going to kill people with a gun, goes on a stabbing spree and kills the same amount of people? Before you say it, 4 people were stab to death and 2 injured yesterday in Ca. Also, the same day as Sandy Hook, 25 people were stabbed to death in China. Japan, whch is gun free, has had chemical weapon attacks instead.

    Fix the metal heath issue. In most cases, including some this past week, the relatives of the mass shooters warned the police...and they could not do anything. It’s the person....not the gun.

    Well Over 300 million guns in the US did not kill anyone today.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  17. Hunt5877

    Hunt5877 Well-Known Member Supporting Addict

    Jan 27, 2019
    I'm all for crazy people not having guns but it seems some would believe that comes at the cost of simply eliminating the right for any of us to own...that I have a hard time accepting.
    isialk, boatdoc, FWoo45 and 5 others like this.
  18. zipper046

    zipper046 Well-Known Member

    Dec 28, 2013
    I'm not a lawyer....but I have some experience with the law (LE) and spent a fair number of years in the Intelligence Community (11 yrs in Naval Intelligence and working with various acronym organizations....)

    Red flag laws require:

    1) proactive review of online postings, review of private and public discussions, and a WHOLE LOT of review of posted information and thoughts.

    I have a hard time seeing the justification of the efforts required....takes alot of time and money...neither of which the gov't has...and if organizations like the NSA and other acronym based organizations are brought to bear...there would for sure be an outcry about invasions of privacy...(which has been argued already with some of our previous attempts to curtail terrorism...)

    Red flag laws issues:

    1) The minute someone's 2nd Amendment right is challenged due to a red flag law will immediately call into question their 1st Amendment right of free speech....and subsequently bring into call other Amendments...(an argument for violation of 4th amendment can be made...yes, public outcries can be seen as not being private, however, outcries on a private account in a semi-private forum may be...the argument can be, and has yet to be, made.)

    It seems to me that the push for red flag laws by the far left may in fact pose a challenge to our basic constitutional rights they so ferociously state they are fighting for....Hmmm...a conundrum of the utmost.....

    Just my 1/2 drunken thoughts ( night with some good Scotch Whiskey and stout beer...LOL).
  19. zipper046

    zipper046 Well-Known Member

    Dec 28, 2013
    ...contol??? sensible control!?? Control is just that...control...stemming from someone's, or some group's, lack of knowledge of a topic. THose seeking to control something usually don't understand that something...they lack knowledge and therefore want to control the narrative, control the outcomes, and exert control in order to push their own self-indulgent agenda....which is usually misinformed and skewed....

    sensible control via more stringent background checks??? Hey...I'm all for background checks...but aside from a basic criminal check what else is there?? criminal checks only show results from court're arrested, tried, and convicted....can you really infringe on someones 2nd Amendment right because they were simply ACCUSED? what about arrests that lead to "nolles" (pronounced "Nollies") which is when the charges are dropped...the arrests show up as such, but if someone is released and charges dropped is that grounds to refuse gun ownership?

    And other than criminal checks (which we already do)...what else is there? certainly medical checks are off limits...HIPAA laws prevent diving into someone's medical details.....including mental issues which seems to be a core issue for numerous egregious shootings.....

    So where do we go from here? what further checks can be done other than basic criminal checks? what in someone's background can prevent ownership? Domestic incidents?? sure, numerous states prevent someone involved in a domestic incident from having a gun (for obvious reasons)....but does anyone here know how many false reports are made in a vindictive fashion just to punish someone? and they turn out to be bogus? I've seen quite a few..and arrested quite a few for making false happens...and the libtards are going to predicate a judgement against someone because of a false accusation? Boy...THAT's a lawsuit that'll net someone a nice retirement....

    Again...I don't want guns in the hands of folks who shouldn't have them...lord knows I've faced countless shitbags with guns who had no right having them...

    Our courts need to be a key point here...STOP LETTING THESE SHITBAGS OUT! Stop pleading for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. chances for these POS's...HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE...bring back full incarcerations...stop BEING SO FREAKING SOFT and TOW THE LINE! this, then background checks will have more teeth....

    Sorry....1/2 drunken rant over....(for now...)
  20. Raylan Givens

    Raylan Givens Never Forget

    Aug 18, 2015
    Good post. Your first two paragraphs made me like you that much more. I'll buy you and @Kip a steak dinner next time I'm up there.
    simonp, SVG, zipper046 and 5 others like this.

You need 3 posts to add links to your posts! This is used to prevent spam.

Draft saved Draft deleted