Yeah, I do think a little regulation is a good thing, and I know that's an unpopular view. Be that as it may, here's the Giffords Law Center gun law roundup for 2017.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-conten ... -pages.pdf
The document refers to state-by-state bills, as well as gun lobby wins.
I'm hoping for a nuanced discussion here.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
2I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan
- Ronald Reagan
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
3Confiscating someone's guns simply because they sought mental health treatment voluntarily is counterproductive. We should also be careful if we believe we are doing someone a favor by reporting them or their caregiver to the state adult care system because we fear for someone's safety. We should never take the consequences of our actions lightly.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
4Well as for me, I don't see much to object to in either the "safety" laws or the "gun lobby" laws, except for these:
The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
The California law seeks to take away someone's rights based on their ideology, and I don't like that kind of thing. It sets a very dangerous precedent.DANGEROUS PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA
AB 785 prohibits hate crime misdemeanants from possessing guns for ten years.
OREGON
SB 719 creates an extreme risk protection order that allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order disarming a person who poses an imminent risk of dangerousness.
The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
5Eris said it well.
A law was made in response to a very very small number of cases. Turns out rights can be taken away based on ideology.
Zounds.
CDFingers
A law was made in response to a very very small number of cases. Turns out rights can be taken away based on ideology.
Zounds.
CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
6When discussing gun laws state by state it is important too look at the violent crime statistics for each state.
How does Texas stack up to the state of California?
Or how does New Jersey stack up to Minnesota or Wisc? As far as suicide goes how does the US suicide rate stack up to other countries with much more restrictive gun laws?
I don't think that gun laws work at all and thats based on observation since the 60s. What I have observed is a markedly higher interest in different guns by the buying public such as handguns and semi auto rifles plus a huge increase in NRA membership since the start of the 70s.
How does Texas stack up to the state of California?
Or how does New Jersey stack up to Minnesota or Wisc? As far as suicide goes how does the US suicide rate stack up to other countries with much more restrictive gun laws?
I don't think that gun laws work at all and thats based on observation since the 60s. What I have observed is a markedly higher interest in different guns by the buying public such as handguns and semi auto rifles plus a huge increase in NRA membership since the start of the 70s.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
7The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
I’m NOT the NRA
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
8The state laws I’ve seen vary widely between in terms of inpatient vs. outpatient, etc. Texas has a fairly broad definition, which seems odd for such a pro-gun state.harriss wrote:Confiscating someone's guns simply because they sought mental health treatment voluntarily is counterproductive. We should also be careful if we believe we are doing someone a favor by reporting them or their caregiver to the state adult care system because we fear for someone's safety. We should never take the consequences of our actions lightly.
I’m NOT the NRA
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
9There is no proof that removing guns (if possible) will lower suicide rates. It may lower suicide by gun, but doesn't touch suicide by rope, chemical, sharp object, fast moving object, or high place. While the trend may be real, the problem may actually be one of more people feeling suicidal and have little to do with guns. Japanese have almost no guns in the general population but have a suicide rate higher than ours. There favorite method is by rope. The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.HotheadPaisan wrote:The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan
- Ronald Reagan
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
10dougb wrote:There is no proof that removing guns (if possible) will lower suicide rates. It may lower suicide by gun, but doesn't touch suicide by rope, chemical, sharp object, fast moving object, or high place. While the trend may be real, the problem may actually be one of more people feeling suicidal and have little to do with guns. We are a practical and lazy people, and guns are efficient. Japanese have almost no guns in the general population but have a suicide rate higher than ours. There favorite method is by rope. The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.HotheadPaisan wrote:The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan
- Ronald Reagan
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
11Exactly.Eris wrote:Well as for me, I don't see much to object to in either the "safety" laws or the "gun lobby" laws, except for these:
The California law seeks to take away someone's rights based on their ideology, and I don't like that kind of thing. It sets a very dangerous precedent.DANGEROUS PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA
AB 785 prohibits hate crime misdemeanants from possessing guns for ten years.
OREGON
SB 719 creates an extreme risk protection order that allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order disarming a person who poses an imminent risk of dangerousness.
The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
12Therein lies the problem--being able to see through the death-by-a-thousand-cuts tactics of gun prohibition groups to the extent "a little regulation" marketed as gun safety is immediately recognized for what it really is.dougb wrote:The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
13You know what else has been on a steady upward trend? The US population. If you look at the *rate*, they are practically identical. (1.02/100k in 2000 vs 1.05 in 2014)HotheadPaisan wrote:[
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:
https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
14Excellent point.PiratePenguin wrote:You know what else has been on a steady upward trend? The US population. If you look at the *rate*, they are practically identical. (1.02/100k in 2000 vs 1.05 in 2014)HotheadPaisan wrote:[
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:
https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
Isn't it reasonable to empower wardens (in the strict definition) to temporarily transfer a ward's firearms if they present an extreme risk to themselves or others?OREGON SB 719
I read the text of the bill: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1 ... 9/Enrolled and it's a maximum of 51 days during which the respondent has the opportunity to appear in court and exercise the right of due process.The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
The list of things for the court is also quite clear and all based upon facts in evidence; a history of violent behavior, drug abuse, convictions, restraining orders, and so forth.
The argument against is hyperbolic and alarmist, and inaccurate to the text of the bill. The petitioner has the burden of proof.
The real question is whether history of violent, uncivil behavior and reasonable certainty of imminent risk of same is enough to temporarily a person's constitutional right to individual ownership (bearing of arms) and force them to argue their fitness before a judge. I'm not capable of making that argument.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
15I wouldn't focus on the hate crime thing, felony assault is still felony assault. Though I think that people do need to consider that in NC when the Vice reporter followed Chris Cantwell around and back to his hotel room, that asshole had three pistols on him a knife and a rifle in his room. He went to that gathering loaded for bear and has advocated violent action many times. To my mind this is a very good example of Clear and Present Danger. If that isn't enough to make ya think about ideology more seriously, consider this. Do you want a bunch of ignorant racist fucks in your neighborhood packing heat?
Never smile too big, the gods may mistake it for hubris.
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
16They already are, and some of them have badges. What is more concerning to me is if I want to stay law abiding I am prevented from carrying.SpaceRanger42 wrote:.... Do you want a bunch of ignorant racist fucks in your neighborhood packing heat?
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
17There was actually something on that list that I could support:
As I stated before, a "Gun Control" law that I could support would be a law:
I held onto some guns for a friend who was going through a rough patch. When he asked for them back I gave them back (he is doing fine. . . not really; but that particular issue is over with).WASHINGTON SB 5552 allows a person to temporarily transfer a firearm without a background check in order to prevent suicide.
As I stated before, a "Gun Control" law that I could support would be a law:
Require county sheriff departments to provide "no questions asked" firearm storage. A person wants the guns out of the house, they take them to the SO. It could be for depression, visiting family that have a bit o' de asshole, or doing some babysitting. . . maybe the self realization that one has a violent temper streak but still likes to go target shooting on weekends, no matter the reason. Drop them off, get a receipt. Want them back, sign them out.
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40
Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup
18The anti-gun equivalent of the NRA-ILA state updates.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan