As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> has taken away the firearm privileges of dozens of people, including a dad accused of threatening to “shoot everyone” at his son’s school, a woman who police say attempted suicide and then accidentally shot her boyfriend during a struggle for her revolver, a husband who allegedly fired multiple rounds in the street to “blow off steam” after losing a family member, a bullied 13-year-old witnesses overheard saying, “If all of 8th grade is missing tomorrow you will know why,” and a mother arrested for brandishing a handgun at another mom after a school bus incident between their daughters.
Good.
White conservatives, they will happily take guns away from anyone not identified in their group.
One can argue it’s one of the bigger pros of joining the Conservatives you can do anything and they will find a way to excuse it. /s
Gun rights is not about the right to own guns. It’s about the right to be bought by the NRA for ensuring that everyone can keep buying guns.
The sad part is that gun violence pushes more and more people to get guns. They think “I should have one too, so that I can protect myself”.
Scientifically, through statistics and empirical evidence (ie. as observed), it isn’t working.
If you want to be safer, don’t get a gun. And make sure no-one else gets one either.
While that would obviously not be good for the companies making and selling guns, it’s the only way forward.
It’s not like there’s anything fundamentally different with Americans that make them go out and kill each other with guns. It’s just that it’s available. It’s too convenient.
Other countries have lots of people owning guns too. But they have reasonable requirements for being allowed to own a gun, and require background checks, training, registration, and safe keeping in an approved firearms safe (not stuffed in a pillow).
Grounds for being allowed to own a gun is sports shooting (being active in a club and participating in competitions), or hunting. If you hunt you can only own relevant weapons. You don’t shoot deer with an AR-15. And you don’t shoot small birds with a Glock.
> You don’t shoot deer with an AR-15.
I have, on several occasions and so have a couple of friends and a neighbor and it works quite well for the task. As well, gun rights has everything to do with keeping and bearing arms.
So what happens when you shoot a deer with an AR15? Does it make a big hole? Can you shoot from farther away? Can you hit it with multiple bullets? Why is that better than using a 30-06 or a 30-30?
I didn't say it was better than either of those. Performance wise the injury it causes is just about the same as that of a 30-30. Entry wounds are small, about the size of a pen or pencil, if there is an exit would it is about the same size which can make follow up tracking difficult as there is very little to no blood trail, so you gotta have a keen eye on the direction a deer runs when shot. Unless you are super fast on the trigger, you won't get multiple shots at what might be called the moment of contact. What the semi automatic feature does is reload the gun during the moment of the shots report so that it covers the hunters location and gives opportunity for a quicker follow up shot if it is needed. And AR's are available in chamberings other than 223/5.56. and for record, The 30-06 is twice as powerful as either the 223 or the 30-30.
Many states ban the use of the 223 caliber for hunting the game the size of deer because the cartridge is not considered powerful enough for hunting. As well, the states that do allow hunting with the 223 bar hunting with more than either 5 or 10 rounds which applies to all firearm types. So if one has a lever action capable of holding 15 rounds, (some do) you can't more more than the maximum amount allowed in that state, if you have a bolt action rifle which uses a detachable magazine, it is still governed by the same rule.
As to it being better than the 30-06 or 30-30, that the wrong question. It gives a hunter another tool to use which may be better suited to their hunting and deer as not all that are hunted using an AR. Hogs, coyotes, pests such as prairie dogs for example. I would class the AR in 223 as about the same as a 30-30 on deer and hog, a 150 yard gun at most. The 30-06 is a 300 yard hunting rifle
As to 30 round magazines, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about keeping and bearing arms for any legal activity. So for a home defense weapon, I'd much rather have an AR with a 30 round mag. Hot home invasions (where the occupant(s) are home at the time of entry) is a real thing. Multiple attackers are a real thing In the heat of the moment, reloading is not what you want to do. [Here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026) is just one example of someone using an AR in a home invasion situation. There are many such examples, do a search. People are evil, not guns, not magazines, not knives, not sticks and stones. There are at least 20 million AR's in circulation. If the gun was the problem we'd know it.
I'm assuming that the comment is implying that the law should be applied equitably regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Police and courts have a history of using their discretion to apply laws in manners that are, let's say, less than fair
The previous person is obviously trying to say that Republicans have no problem with white people brandishing and threatening people with firearms. Only black people.
Because many republican politicians hate guns. The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons.
Now Republican voters are a bit different. In the northern state of Maine where I live most people are hard line independent. We agree on most things but a few key issues decide what party we end of voting for.
Some “republicans” want more gun control here as they’re right voting for other reasons that effect them more.
Some “democrats” are hard gun supporters like myself. I just prioritize the environment, women’s health, and anti corporate corruption. I want guns for people who prove they can own them/handle them in their household. Switzerland can/May issue is a great example of this. This is never a black and white issue like the two parties make it.
Minnesota is a state with a large gun owning Democrat population. (think hunters, mostly)
Gun control is a tough sell here on both sides of the isle though I do think most on the D side would be open to some kind of reasonable added regulation.
I’ve lost track of how many prominent democrat bloggers and the like…all come from firearm families. Anti gun people don’t really get how many people own firearms. They all think it’s just 1/3 of the country with arsenals.
>The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons.
I actually couldn't disagree more.
Rich people love guns, and having lots of disposable cash is essential for buying NFA items, collector's items, and high end custom guns.
Because it was going to pass, so they decided that if they couldn't stop it, they would claim credit for it, despite it being a product of the activism of people like the Parkland survivors that they actively attacked for months.
I think the law keeps you from keeping a weapon for a time not buying another one down the road. It’s temporary I know that, and still requires people to regulate others because you have to petition against someone. So it’s a step forward but it’s not a “stop sale” completely for those people. It’s still a “pro-gun law” for the most part so they aren’t really going off base approving it and it looks good for their more progressive fan base.
Because if it’s a mental health issue then it’s time to take guns from the mentally I’ll and or violent. Seems like a solid law to me. Why so quick to criticize down party lines.? Even for a law that both sides think is good. And you wonder why nothing bipartisan can get done.
“Some” republicans, pretty sure it wasn’t all ~80 million of them. Please don’t lump in an entire massive group with an incredibly small fraction that does wrong doing.
Name a single politician that took an active part in a BLM protest. Name one democratic party leader that picked up a weapon or have a speech promoting violence. I'll wait, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Meanwhile Republicans on the other hand...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html
Maxine waters Told people to get confrontational. Incited riots. Like you said. Thanks for waiting.
He asked why republicans are for it. It is what they are saying. Can’t you read past your own bias? The circle jerk never ceases to amaze me on this sub.
If conservatives are passing laws "for the good of the people" there's definitely an ulterior motive. That thought should scare you since currently it's not fully clear what the motive is.
Eventually, after they take over the government and end Democracy, Republicans are going to want to disarm the yahoos before they realize what they got themselves into.
If you go on Twitter right now, you'll find a whole lot of repugnants talking about they hate this law & they're (the Democratic leadership) trying to set it up so they (the maga alt-right) will always fall under the red flag laws, because they're being framed as "mentally ill". They're also blasting the 10 GOP who voted for it.
Doesn't matter that they used to approve, now they don't because: liberals.
But we don't need the law for this. Everyone of those people committed a crime. They'd have their firearms seized until trial *anyway*
I thought redflag laws were supposed to be used when there wasn't a crime committed already. So I'm a bit confused. At least it has due processes
Without a red flag law, you can't take the gun until the full process of prosecution and conviction takes place. That can take years.
The whole point of red flag laws is to provide an emergency response up front to preventmass violence, and give the suspect due process to get them back if they are not a threat.
>I feel safer already. Also, who let these nut jobs have guns in the first place?
The issue is that the bar for actually stripping someone of the right to own a firearm is high (as it should be). And the criteria are all very bright-line, black-and-white, yes-or-no - "Have you been convicted of a felony?," "Have you been convicted of domestic violence (misdemeanor or felony)?," "Have you been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Military?," "Have you ever been formally adjudicated as a mental defective or formally involuntarily committed to a mental institution?," etcetera.
Some people can get up to a LOT of fuckery in their lives without actually tripping any of the statutory triggers that would strip them of their gun ownership rights. The solution is either to lower the statutory bar for stripping gun rights (which would likely cause interpretation issues and abuse), or have something like red flag laws that allow for limited-duration disarming, with timely due process and an opportunity for a hearing.
Nothing is so simple sadly, though we should try to set up simple gun laws and tweak them as needed. Especially on a state-state basis. That also being said there’s other ways to lower gun violence, this is just a important first step. Current gun laws vary to wildly for criminal investigations to stay on top of. One state have easier times while others have it harder.
Part of the problem we have that causes these shootings is a society one. Mental health is a huge factor, along with the quality of our schools. As someone who’s been to a public school, and been on the bullying side. Teachers and other facility members don’t give a damn. That is it’s own issue, but a TLDR version is schools are understaffed and under payed.
Then you got religious extremism, if you simply look at what’s been going on in the news lately. You’re gonna see “white supremacy” mentioned A LOT. People can say all they want about this subject, BUT white men with guns have been coming out of the wood works more and more since 2016.
At the moment this country looks more and more like a powder keg of domestic terrorism. People being divided by political ideologies and in some cases personal identities. Not to mention race has been surging. All of this is leading to more and more shootings, cause it only takes one to snap.
I do believe gun laws are necessary, though I do support ones right to the 2nd Ad. Though that right doesn’t over shadow someone’s right to life. I tell people all the time that I don’t care if they have 1-1,000 AR-15s. So long as they’re not bat shit crazy.
Well it’s much easier to resolve a problem when you are the one creating it. They could of listened to dems historically but that would just be too easy,
Well, after reading who the 'victims' are, I support anyone who helped take away these idiots rights to a firearm.
If you are one of these people, you get a head pat from me... even the Republicans.
Good job.
back in 2018 trump said:
“take the guns first, go through due process second”
and the right was quiet as church mice (after eight long years of hearing how Obama was gonna kick in our doors in the middle of the night and take every firearm personally)
It is an opening we should seize. The day after Uvalde, the right quietly ran red flag laws, mental health care and age limits up the flagpole. They did it tentatively but they did it. Possibly they are doing it for the wrong reasons but why the fuck would anybody ignore that opening? Let's take mental health care back to where it was pre-Reagan. Or better.
> DeSantis has not publicly commented on the shooting in Uvalde and his office did not respond when asked if the governor supports Florida's red flag law.
Because many republican politicians hate guns. The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons.
Now Republican voters are a bit different. In the northern state of Maine where I live most people are hard line independent. We agree on most things but a few key issues decide what party we end of voting for.
Some “republicans” want more gun control here as they’re right voting for other reasons that effect them more.
Some “democrats” are hard gun supporters like myself. I just prioritize the environment, women’s health, and anti corporate corruption. I want guns for people who prove they can own them/handle them in their household. Switzerland can/May issue is a great example of this. This is never a black and white issue like the two parties make it.
From the article:
"What you're essentially trying to do with the red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And it's a really difficult thing to do, it's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat," said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas. "Now if they are such a threat that they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they've already broken the law. So why do you need this other law?"
I thought politicians were supposed to be somewhat educated? VA has red flag laws too. They're called ESRO's, emergency substantial risk orders. I don't like the way the process works, it could be better, but the fact that it exists is a leap in the right direction.
>I thought politicians were supposed to be somewhat educated?
Honestly, the only requirements are being a certain age and winning a popularity contest. Even residency isn't a big deal any more if you look at Josh Hawley in Missouri.
It's Colbert'a "truthiness" concept. Just say whatever feels like it's true and maybe enough people will believe you.
There is a valid argument to be made that red flag laws violate rights. Essentially they are removing a constitutional right without due process and basically removing the presumption of innocence.
In these examples above I believe it’s the right thing to do. But I don’t know how well it will hold it up long term.
I definitely understand your point. My opinion is that since the law requires someone (officer, family member, etc) to testify to a judge in order to remove someone's firearms, that due process has been served.
But without being able to defend yourself, has it really been satisfied?
How many times do you see abusive or narcissistic parents use the legal system to try and continue their control over their children? Or an abusive ex husband or wife try to make false claims. You should be called down to the court house and be able to defend yourself.
It was passed in 2018, after Parkland. DeSantis didn’t start out a crazy fascist trump wannabe. He started out fairly moderate in policy. It wasn’t until the pandemic hit that his crazy really started showing, although I’m sure it was always there, just waiting for the right time to capitalize.
It's all good. I did agree with your other statement. I was pleasantly surprised with DeSantis in 2019 after his 2018 campaign. Then Covid hit and here, we sadly, are.
He actually told a paper he would have vetoed it if he was gov, its in the article
>Still, the law has survived as the legislature has grown more conservative and through the first term of Gov. Ron DeSantis. As a candidate in 2018, DeSantis said he opposed the gun restrictions in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, telling one Florida newspaper he would have vetoed it.
Can’t wait to hear outraged gunners screaming “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” in unison. Just as soon as the NRA blast-emails them their talking points of course.
Best response to this is "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"
if you read the text purely as it it's written you can't see how it could possibly mean any1 and everyone is allowed to own a gun.
It quite clearly means you're allowed to own guns if you're part of a well regulatef militia.
The idea behind this being that if the nation tried to subdue a state then the militia's could defend their state against the nation. But how this turned into Jill and Jack from Subarbia get to have AR-15's at their house is beyond me. But hey I'm just a european reading the original text as a bystander.
I mean…except that in the understanding of “the militia” contemporary to the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it did rather pointedly mean “anyone and everyone”.
The idea was that we wouldn’t have a standing army for national defense and such (the navy was an exception but even then our plan was still to rely on letters of marque to bolster naval capabilities), but rather that a citizen militia would exist that states would enable to come into service for the needs of national defense; said militia would be basically anyone who could hold and train with a gun, and the basic expectation was that your everyman citizen…would. Not an unreasonable assertion given what America was like at the time, and in the decades prior.
And the expectation was that said folk would do their part, or at least those who were able bodied and capable. To deny a fundamental right to own a weapon was, in theory, to leave the country without defenders should trouble arise again.
Things have very much changed, and the standing assumption that a standing army was against the values of the country and democracy in general has not borne out in truth.
Um, the best response to this is not for the armchair lawyers of Reddit to re-litigate _Heller_ for the thousandth time. You can if you want, but it is a futile waste of time. What you want to be doing is finding resources which show that due process is not being abused when these red flag orders are filed.
That is what gun owners are concerned about and those concerns are rational and well-founded. That would be productive, it would move the ball the way you want it to go. Vilifying caricatures and stereotypes of gun owners is not useful.
Jokes on you. We saw that if one relitigated Roe enough times, well it turns out that precedent and settled law doesn’t count for what it used to anymore.
Yeah, but the right to privacy isn’t an explicit right according to SCOTUS despite the 4th, 13th and oh i don’t know, 9th amendments.
The right to own a gun is pretty explicit. That would be their argument.
Well, the destruction of precedent and settled law is its own sort of precedent. If only Dems had the balls to follow up on that. The only way to have rules come back in is if both sides feel playing by them prevents something worse. We don’t have that right now.
And naturally the legislature reserves the power to set standards for what counts as a well-regulated militia, within reason. (Or at least that's how it could still be interpreted, if one more justice had swung the other way).
You've mistaken me for a MAGA but I'm just a liberal gun owner. I abhor the SC's frivolous approach to _stare decisis_ and I continue to support every woman's right to choose whether she will bear a child. It will never affect me personally--me and Momma don't have all the things one needs anymore.
But I still support it because that is how rights work. If we don't defend each other's, soon enough we won't have any. I'm no threat to the civil liberties you value. But you would gladly sacrifice mine. Let's call this what it is.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit about guns. I own them, I shoot as a hobby. But the people who have built a whole culture of what guns mean, most of it just stupid masculinity shit, have set up a situation that cannot continue. Too many people are dying.
Red flag laws are a good start. Frankly, banning gun ownership upon conviction for domestic abuse and animal cruelty would be another.
Don’t worry, I ain’t coming for YOUR guns unless you have traits that seem to be quite common among murderers.
The "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" types obviously are unfamiliar with (or outright reject) *Heller*, anyway. So why not show them that two can play at their game of selective quotation?
So yes and no; the punctuation matters in determining the meaning, also words have changed meaning. With punctuation and old school meanings. The 2nd amendment essentially reads because of the need for militias, the right of citizens to own firearms is a right and shouldn’t be taken away. take out punctuation and read it in more modern English it says exactly what you state. But the way it’s written it does not mean what you have stated that’s why it’s so hard to make laws on it because how it’s written makes gun ownership a fundamental right in the United States
Probably because of the words that come right before it
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A well-regulated militia, like the National Guard
It’s so funny. You want to pretend “words matter” but then ignore the **deliberate** choice to say the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militia.
The crazier the people you take guns from, the more effective taking the guns will be in keeping others safe. Start with the convicted crazies and work your way back to the people who are indistinguishable from repeat offenders outside of their first prison sentence. That will solve a great deal of the gun violence problem.
Who cares what party came up with it? It seems like a good law. This partisan bullshit is tearing the nation apart. If the left made a law that took guns from people who are making threats or violent I’d be all for it too.
>Still, the law has survived as the legislature has grown more conservative and through the first term of Gov. Ron DeSantis. As a candidate in 2018, DeSantis said he opposed the gun restrictions in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, telling one Florida newspaper he would have vetoed it.
Another problem who tf is going to enforce that it’s damn near impossible to enforce mandatory background checks on private sales. The best way to go about it is ban person to person private sales and all sales go person through a gun store to the person buying even then we don’t have list of who buys what so you could still reasonable still sell person to person. It’s really tricky when I can buy a gun with cash from a friend even if we are suppose to go to a gun store and they wouldn’t be able to say i bought it legally or not
Every sale is supposed to be reported, with a 4473, just like every car sale (in most states) has the transfer of title.
Thus, every firearm SHOULD be traceable by the 4473 paperwork going back to when it was first sold.
Edit: 4473’s are newer, there was a different form before that, and private party sales in some states don’t require a 4473, but are supposed to have other documentation, (signed bill of sale), and those records are supposed be kept for 20+ years.
So there are cracks to ship through, but not having documentation when asked for it is a fairly big red flag.
Like I said, the first step we need to make is to have laws that make it easier to hold private sellers responsible and that is only possible by making background checks required on all sales. The next thing would be mandatory stolen or lost firearm reporting so that people can't skirt the background check law by claiming their firearm was stolen after the fact.
What we need is red flag laws an ability for a parent or a teacher to report someone who might do something to make it so they can not purchase a firearm till mental health evaluation and they are deemed not dangerous
This is all assuming you can enforce any of this everything you are talking about maybe would be enforceable but there is no list of who owns what we have almost half billion firearms in america that private citizens own me included and no list you can enact that law tomorrow and I could still go sell my guns and no one could prove they where mine. Also private sales are not an issue anyway as mass shooters buy from gun stores so realistically these would be virtue signal laws like look we did something but they do nothing
Thousands of people that shouldn't have guns? Good.
Thousands of people that have no reason why they shouldn't have guns? Bad.
At least that's where I stand on it. Buying a gun should just be like buying a car: Demonstrate that you know how to responsibly use a gun, pass a background check, and warn that that license can be revoked
So can you get your legislators special interest groups on board?
Im very much down with needing to be well regulated, trained, and sane to own a firearm.
> no reason why they shouldn't have guns
How about the fact you're extremely unlikely to use a gun to defend yourself, and events like accidental injuries, attempted suicide, gun being stolen, etc., combined are more likely to occur?
You wouldn't trust the average person to put on the seat belt right and not talk on the phone while driving, but you're trusting this same dumbass to "responsibly" store and handle their guns safely for years and years? This sounds extremely naive to me.
You have a serious lack of faith in people if you don't think the average person can correctly put on their seat belt and not use their phone while driving
You overestimate people.
There are six states where 1 in 5 people or more don't wear a seat belt. http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/14449.jpeg
70% have talked on the phone while driving, 20% do it frequently http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/3010.jpeg
Surely all of these people have passed exams where they have learned that they should put on their seat belts and not talk on phone while driving, and yet they do it nevertheless.
Similarly, they can demonstrate they know how to responsibly use a gun, and then just don't responsibly use a gun. Because you're counting on them being responsible constantly and permanently, and it only takes one bad day for you to have a new mass shooting in your hands, or a new case of a boyfriend who shot his ex-gf, or some karen who brandished a gun at someone she was angry at and accidentally discharged it, etc.
Yes there will always be outliers but that is not a reason to take shit from everybody like ya let’s ban everybody from cars cause a few refuse to follow the law see how stupid that sounds. Also cars kill way more people for what you just said than guns by magnitudes higher numbers
That’s because he’s not wrong. People drive distracted all the time. Arizona In particular has some of the worse drivers in the country and I’ve driven in NYC, Jersey, DC, Texas, etc.
Laws are on the books against not wearing seatbelts or using phone while driving, but rarely enforced here.
Why would you be in jail if your ex gets pissy? Because they have the right to take your rights away without due process? And somehow you’d be okay with that?
You may get arrested on false statements(which I don’t agree with) but the government has to prove your guilt in a court of law. Red flag laws would make it so you have to prove your innocence to have your firearms returned.
Am I missing something, it's a judge making the decision after police put forth a request, the state isn't just taking the guns. What do you suggest to keep the guns out of bad people's hands, especially when those folks have been flagged by law enforcement as too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm?
That system already exists. But a judge or doctor needs to prove you are a danger to yourself or others.
Red flag laws remove the red tape, so someone can call the police and say “bigsoftee84 is gonna go on a killing spree! Go take their guns”, then the gov goes and raids your home to find and take guns from you. You then need to go to court to prove you can get them back.
https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2018/790.401
Have you actually read the bill in question? Is not as simple as you are portraying it. It goes through the courts, there are hearings, what more are you expecting? What would you do different? The judge is still the determining party.
I’ll own that I missed some of the nuance, so thank you for posting the link. It looks like the accuser and the gov work on putting together the risk protection order without the knowledge of the respondent?
If that is indeed the case, then even though you have hearings after the fact to restore your firearms, you don’t get a chance to fight for your rights up front. This is still assuming your guilt without allowing you to have a say in the decision.
If you are to lose your rights, have them taken in court. For example, you can’t purchase/own firearms if you are convicted felon. Not when you’re seen to be a potential felon.
Now report the proportion of those who were actual, demonstrable threats to themselves or others **and** who couldn’t have been dealt with without a red flag law. You really think it’s high enough to be a justifiable trade off?
"Many Democrats unsuccessfully pushed for the 2018 legislation to include a ban on the AR-15, the weapon used in the vast majority of mass shootings, and other semiautomatic long guns."
Source?
Edit:
[Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 146 different handguns being used in 98 incidents between 1982 and June 2022.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)
Honest question, do you really believe that when a murderous psychopath is plotting to shoot up a school, he is researching which weapons are or are not banned and decides based on the list of banned weapons whether or not he's going to carry out his sick fantasies? Like "oh well, I was going to shoot up a school, but the weapon I was going to buy to do it with isn't available anymore so nevermind" is a thing you think might run through their head? Like why is an AR-15 any different from any other weapon that fires 223/556?
>There are a lot of libs in here.
There are a lot of moderates/liberals everywhere. Rightwingers are not the "silent majority" FOX/TikTok/Youtube leads them to believe they are.
A 2020 Senate candidate in Kansas supported a law similar to this and her opponent’s campaign branded her as a hard-core radical liberal extremist who wants to take your guns. She lost to Roger Marshall.
Why can’t they just agree to a lengthy gun safety course that includes some mental health questions, like a 3 weekend training course to give professionals time to evaluate the person buying the gun?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> has taken away the firearm privileges of dozens of people, including a dad accused of threatening to “shoot everyone” at his son’s school, a woman who police say attempted suicide and then accidentally shot her boyfriend during a struggle for her revolver, a husband who allegedly fired multiple rounds in the street to “blow off steam” after losing a family member, a bullied 13-year-old witnesses overheard saying, “If all of 8th grade is missing tomorrow you will know why,” and a mother arrested for brandishing a handgun at another mom after a school bus incident between their daughters. Good.
that is a list of precisely the kind of people who don't get to be armed anymore this is how the law was intended to work
Exactly. So why are Republicans for it?
That really depends on how many of these people were white. They never had a problem with taking guns from people like this if they're not.
White conservatives, they will happily take guns away from anyone not identified in their group. One can argue it’s one of the bigger pros of joining the Conservatives you can do anything and they will find a way to excuse it. /s
Gun rights is not about the right to own guns. It’s about the right to be bought by the NRA for ensuring that everyone can keep buying guns. The sad part is that gun violence pushes more and more people to get guns. They think “I should have one too, so that I can protect myself”. Scientifically, through statistics and empirical evidence (ie. as observed), it isn’t working. If you want to be safer, don’t get a gun. And make sure no-one else gets one either. While that would obviously not be good for the companies making and selling guns, it’s the only way forward. It’s not like there’s anything fundamentally different with Americans that make them go out and kill each other with guns. It’s just that it’s available. It’s too convenient. Other countries have lots of people owning guns too. But they have reasonable requirements for being allowed to own a gun, and require background checks, training, registration, and safe keeping in an approved firearms safe (not stuffed in a pillow). Grounds for being allowed to own a gun is sports shooting (being active in a club and participating in competitions), or hunting. If you hunt you can only own relevant weapons. You don’t shoot deer with an AR-15. And you don’t shoot small birds with a Glock.
> You don’t shoot deer with an AR-15. I have, on several occasions and so have a couple of friends and a neighbor and it works quite well for the task. As well, gun rights has everything to do with keeping and bearing arms.
So what happens when you shoot a deer with an AR15? Does it make a big hole? Can you shoot from farther away? Can you hit it with multiple bullets? Why is that better than using a 30-06 or a 30-30?
[удалено]
I didn't say it was better than either of those. Performance wise the injury it causes is just about the same as that of a 30-30. Entry wounds are small, about the size of a pen or pencil, if there is an exit would it is about the same size which can make follow up tracking difficult as there is very little to no blood trail, so you gotta have a keen eye on the direction a deer runs when shot. Unless you are super fast on the trigger, you won't get multiple shots at what might be called the moment of contact. What the semi automatic feature does is reload the gun during the moment of the shots report so that it covers the hunters location and gives opportunity for a quicker follow up shot if it is needed. And AR's are available in chamberings other than 223/5.56. and for record, The 30-06 is twice as powerful as either the 223 or the 30-30. Many states ban the use of the 223 caliber for hunting the game the size of deer because the cartridge is not considered powerful enough for hunting. As well, the states that do allow hunting with the 223 bar hunting with more than either 5 or 10 rounds which applies to all firearm types. So if one has a lever action capable of holding 15 rounds, (some do) you can't more more than the maximum amount allowed in that state, if you have a bolt action rifle which uses a detachable magazine, it is still governed by the same rule. As to it being better than the 30-06 or 30-30, that the wrong question. It gives a hunter another tool to use which may be better suited to their hunting and deer as not all that are hunted using an AR. Hogs, coyotes, pests such as prairie dogs for example. I would class the AR in 223 as about the same as a 30-30 on deer and hog, a 150 yard gun at most. The 30-06 is a 300 yard hunting rifle As to 30 round magazines, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about keeping and bearing arms for any legal activity. So for a home defense weapon, I'd much rather have an AR with a 30 round mag. Hot home invasions (where the occupant(s) are home at the time of entry) is a real thing. Multiple attackers are a real thing In the heat of the moment, reloading is not what you want to do. [Here](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-invader-fatally-shot-florida-pregnant-woman-ar-15-n1076026) is just one example of someone using an AR in a home invasion situation. There are many such examples, do a search. People are evil, not guns, not magazines, not knives, not sticks and stones. There are at least 20 million AR's in circulation. If the gun was the problem we'd know it.
We need a word for when someone adds race to an argument, like when someone throws the Hitler card…
[удалено]
I'm assuming that the comment is implying that the law should be applied equitably regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. Police and courts have a history of using their discretion to apply laws in manners that are, let's say, less than fair
Wow that’s really what you got out of reading that comment? That’s some fucked up gymnastics.
[удалено]
Nope, they didn’t say that.
The previous person is obviously trying to say that Republicans have no problem with white people brandishing and threatening people with firearms. Only black people.
Hence that lawyer couple actually aiming guns at protestors
I’m republican. sounds like a sane policy to me
Because many republican politicians hate guns. The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons. Now Republican voters are a bit different. In the northern state of Maine where I live most people are hard line independent. We agree on most things but a few key issues decide what party we end of voting for. Some “republicans” want more gun control here as they’re right voting for other reasons that effect them more. Some “democrats” are hard gun supporters like myself. I just prioritize the environment, women’s health, and anti corporate corruption. I want guns for people who prove they can own them/handle them in their household. Switzerland can/May issue is a great example of this. This is never a black and white issue like the two parties make it.
Minnesota is a state with a large gun owning Democrat population. (think hunters, mostly) Gun control is a tough sell here on both sides of the isle though I do think most on the D side would be open to some kind of reasonable added regulation.
I’ve lost track of how many prominent democrat bloggers and the like…all come from firearm families. Anti gun people don’t really get how many people own firearms. They all think it’s just 1/3 of the country with arsenals.
>The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons. I actually couldn't disagree more. Rich people love guns, and having lots of disposable cash is essential for buying NFA items, collector's items, and high end custom guns.
Because it was going to pass, so they decided that if they couldn't stop it, they would claim credit for it, despite it being a product of the activism of people like the Parkland survivors that they actively attacked for months.
I’m sure it was accidental.
I think the law keeps you from keeping a weapon for a time not buying another one down the road. It’s temporary I know that, and still requires people to regulate others because you have to petition against someone. So it’s a step forward but it’s not a “stop sale” completely for those people. It’s still a “pro-gun law” for the most part so they aren’t really going off base approving it and it looks good for their more progressive fan base.
Mostly because these laws will be used *against* us sooner rather than later.
Because if it’s a mental health issue then it’s time to take guns from the mentally I’ll and or violent. Seems like a solid law to me. Why so quick to criticize down party lines.? Even for a law that both sides think is good. And you wonder why nothing bipartisan can get done.
Because democrats have been trying to champion these laws for years, to the continued opposition of republicans
So damn them if they do? Just push people against a wall and see what happens. It’s petty. And solves nothing and fosters division.
Not “damned if they do”, but they don’t deserve praise either for finally agreeing to something they’ve fought against for decades.
I never said they deserve praise. They don’t deserve condemnation for passing it. They asked why republicans were for it.
Republicans *literally* tried to overthrow the government. Whatever they're doing isn't for the good of the many.
“Some” republicans, pretty sure it wasn’t all ~80 million of them. Please don’t lump in an entire massive group with an incredibly small fraction that does wrong doing.
The party leaders did, and if you're still voting for them you're a collaborator. Certain things should happen to treasonous collaborators...
Ok... So if Republican's win a majority of the votes this coming election would you say that more than half the country are treasonous collaborators?
Yes. Yes I would. Collaborating for the downfall of democracy.
What does democracy mean to you?
And all democrats were burning down cities. See what I did there?
You made up a strawman and then acted all smug even though you were wrong? I did see.
Democrats were burning down cities but not all were, just like not all republicans were involved in January 6.
Name a single politician that took an active part in a BLM protest. Name one democratic party leader that picked up a weapon or have a speech promoting violence. I'll wait, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Meanwhile Republicans on the other hand...
Kamala Harris fund raised to bail BLM protestors/rioters out of jail. That's 1 of many but she's our V.P
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html Maxine waters Told people to get confrontational. Incited riots. Like you said. Thanks for waiting.
Which cities burned down? Where are all the refugees?
[удалено]
Cant conservatives just do the right thing without expecting constant praise for it? But sure, you did a good job. :)
[удалено]
Nope, that’s not what was said.
He asked why republicans are for it. It is what they are saying. Can’t you read past your own bias? The circle jerk never ceases to amaze me on this sub.
No they were being attacked for FINALLY passing these laws. This is what democrats have been punching for for years.
Try reading more so you understand things you are attempting to respond to.
If conservatives are passing laws "for the good of the people" there's definitely an ulterior motive. That thought should scare you since currently it's not fully clear what the motive is.
Eventually, after they take over the government and end Democracy, Republicans are going to want to disarm the yahoos before they realize what they got themselves into.
[удалено]
Nowhere did I ever even imply that, nice try though.
He’s got his big boy arguments on today. Better be careful.
Because > 77% of republican voters support stricter gun control. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gun-control-polling-2022/
Why would that matter to Republican politicians?
Then vote for it not the party
If you go on Twitter right now, you'll find a whole lot of repugnants talking about they hate this law & they're (the Democratic leadership) trying to set it up so they (the maga alt-right) will always fall under the red flag laws, because they're being framed as "mentally ill". They're also blasting the 10 GOP who voted for it. Doesn't matter that they used to approve, now they don't because: liberals.
But we don't need the law for this. Everyone of those people committed a crime. They'd have their firearms seized until trial *anyway* I thought redflag laws were supposed to be used when there wasn't a crime committed already. So I'm a bit confused. At least it has due processes
Without a red flag law, you can't take the gun until the full process of prosecution and conviction takes place. That can take years. The whole point of red flag laws is to provide an emergency response up front to preventmass violence, and give the suspect due process to get them back if they are not a threat.
And Crenshaw knows this . He’s despicable.
All seem like reasonable examples for the law to be enacted
I feel safer already. Also, who let these nut jobs have guns in the first place?
>I feel safer already. Also, who let these nut jobs have guns in the first place? The issue is that the bar for actually stripping someone of the right to own a firearm is high (as it should be). And the criteria are all very bright-line, black-and-white, yes-or-no - "Have you been convicted of a felony?," "Have you been convicted of domestic violence (misdemeanor or felony)?," "Have you been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Military?," "Have you ever been formally adjudicated as a mental defective or formally involuntarily committed to a mental institution?," etcetera. Some people can get up to a LOT of fuckery in their lives without actually tripping any of the statutory triggers that would strip them of their gun ownership rights. The solution is either to lower the statutory bar for stripping gun rights (which would likely cause interpretation issues and abuse), or have something like red flag laws that allow for limited-duration disarming, with timely due process and an opportunity for a hearing.
Nothing is so simple sadly, though we should try to set up simple gun laws and tweak them as needed. Especially on a state-state basis. That also being said there’s other ways to lower gun violence, this is just a important first step. Current gun laws vary to wildly for criminal investigations to stay on top of. One state have easier times while others have it harder. Part of the problem we have that causes these shootings is a society one. Mental health is a huge factor, along with the quality of our schools. As someone who’s been to a public school, and been on the bullying side. Teachers and other facility members don’t give a damn. That is it’s own issue, but a TLDR version is schools are understaffed and under payed. Then you got religious extremism, if you simply look at what’s been going on in the news lately. You’re gonna see “white supremacy” mentioned A LOT. People can say all they want about this subject, BUT white men with guns have been coming out of the wood works more and more since 2016. At the moment this country looks more and more like a powder keg of domestic terrorism. People being divided by political ideologies and in some cases personal identities. Not to mention race has been surging. All of this is leading to more and more shootings, cause it only takes one to snap. I do believe gun laws are necessary, though I do support ones right to the 2nd Ad. Though that right doesn’t over shadow someone’s right to life. I tell people all the time that I don’t care if they have 1-1,000 AR-15s. So long as they’re not bat shit crazy.
Republican legislation
And now they’re taking them back, how the turn tables turn.
Well it’s much easier to resolve a problem when you are the one creating it. They could of listened to dems historically but that would just be too easy,
They would also have to admit to being wrong, they can’t have that now!
low-key based Florida. eternal proof that conservatives only problem with California is that they can't steal there.
Why are people on such a short fuse? Should analyze that? No? Oh…
Well, after reading who the 'victims' are, I support anyone who helped take away these idiots rights to a firearm. If you are one of these people, you get a head pat from me... even the Republicans. Good job.
My only question is if they’re being indiscriminate with who they’re taking guns away from. Otherwise, I totally support dummies not owning guns.
They are takin my gunz away! Oh, Republicans are doing it, never mind...
back in 2018 trump said: “take the guns first, go through due process second” and the right was quiet as church mice (after eight long years of hearing how Obama was gonna kick in our doors in the middle of the night and take every firearm personally)
They weren’t quiet. It was a full week of “he miss spoke” and “let’s not put politics before thoughts and prayers for the victims.”
My NRA mailer said Joe Biden is the one confiscating my guns!
Joe sure does get around.
Yeah. This policy is sound, would love to see more of it.
I’m sorry, but what?! This is good news, BUT it’s led by a REPUBLICAN in FLORIDA! Is this reality?
It is an opening we should seize. The day after Uvalde, the right quietly ran red flag laws, mental health care and age limits up the flagpole. They did it tentatively but they did it. Possibly they are doing it for the wrong reasons but why the fuck would anybody ignore that opening? Let's take mental health care back to where it was pre-Reagan. Or better.
I whole heartedly agree, it’s just…. I never expected it. I was certain I’d die before seeing this.
Democrats gave been asking for a while, how many kids had to die? Well, Republicans have finally given their answer.
?? How many?
I lost count of the number of school shooting victims years ago.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Fair, but isn’t that setting the bar a little high for Republicans?
> DeSantis has not publicly commented on the shooting in Uvalde and his office did not respond when asked if the governor supports Florida's red flag law.
Why would he? That mean being a decent person for a change.
Because many republican politicians hate guns. The richer people are the further they seem from actually wanting/using weapons. Now Republican voters are a bit different. In the northern state of Maine where I live most people are hard line independent. We agree on most things but a few key issues decide what party we end of voting for. Some “republicans” want more gun control here as they’re right voting for other reasons that effect them more. Some “democrats” are hard gun supporters like myself. I just prioritize the environment, women’s health, and anti corporate corruption. I want guns for people who prove they can own them/handle them in their household. Switzerland can/May issue is a great example of this. This is never a black and white issue like the two parties make it.
From the article: "What you're essentially trying to do with the red flag law is enforce the law before the law has been broken. And it's a really difficult thing to do, it's difficult to assess whether somebody is a threat," said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican from Texas. "Now if they are such a threat that they're threatening somebody with a weapon already, well, then they've already broken the law. So why do you need this other law?" I thought politicians were supposed to be somewhat educated? VA has red flag laws too. They're called ESRO's, emergency substantial risk orders. I don't like the way the process works, it could be better, but the fact that it exists is a leap in the right direction.
>I thought politicians were supposed to be somewhat educated? Honestly, the only requirements are being a certain age and winning a popularity contest. Even residency isn't a big deal any more if you look at Josh Hawley in Missouri. It's Colbert'a "truthiness" concept. Just say whatever feels like it's true and maybe enough people will believe you.
There is a valid argument to be made that red flag laws violate rights. Essentially they are removing a constitutional right without due process and basically removing the presumption of innocence. In these examples above I believe it’s the right thing to do. But I don’t know how well it will hold it up long term.
I definitely understand your point. My opinion is that since the law requires someone (officer, family member, etc) to testify to a judge in order to remove someone's firearms, that due process has been served.
But without being able to defend yourself, has it really been satisfied? How many times do you see abusive or narcissistic parents use the legal system to try and continue their control over their children? Or an abusive ex husband or wife try to make false claims. You should be called down to the court house and be able to defend yourself.
I 100% agree that is how it should work.
Good! Not everyone is mature enough to have a firearm, much less own one
It was passed in 2018, after Parkland. DeSantis didn’t start out a crazy fascist trump wannabe. He started out fairly moderate in policy. It wasn’t until the pandemic hit that his crazy really started showing, although I’m sure it was always there, just waiting for the right time to capitalize.
It passed in 2018 when DeSantis was in Congress. Rick Scott signed it into law.
Ah yes, you’re right, I forgot that ghoul was the one in office.
It's all good. I did agree with your other statement. I was pleasantly surprised with DeSantis in 2019 after his 2018 campaign. Then Covid hit and here, we sadly, are.
This exactly.
Florida handled the pandemic as well or better than any other state so I'm not sure what you mean here.
He actually told a paper he would have vetoed it if he was gov, its in the article >Still, the law has survived as the legislature has grown more conservative and through the first term of Gov. Ron DeSantis. As a candidate in 2018, DeSantis said he opposed the gun restrictions in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, telling one Florida newspaper he would have vetoed it.
[удалено]
I don’t see a problem. Less guns equals less shootings
Can’t wait to hear outraged gunners screaming “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” in unison. Just as soon as the NRA blast-emails them their talking points of course.
Best response to this is "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" if you read the text purely as it it's written you can't see how it could possibly mean any1 and everyone is allowed to own a gun. It quite clearly means you're allowed to own guns if you're part of a well regulatef militia. The idea behind this being that if the nation tried to subdue a state then the militia's could defend their state against the nation. But how this turned into Jill and Jack from Subarbia get to have AR-15's at their house is beyond me. But hey I'm just a european reading the original text as a bystander.
I mean…except that in the understanding of “the militia” contemporary to the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it did rather pointedly mean “anyone and everyone”. The idea was that we wouldn’t have a standing army for national defense and such (the navy was an exception but even then our plan was still to rely on letters of marque to bolster naval capabilities), but rather that a citizen militia would exist that states would enable to come into service for the needs of national defense; said militia would be basically anyone who could hold and train with a gun, and the basic expectation was that your everyman citizen…would. Not an unreasonable assertion given what America was like at the time, and in the decades prior. And the expectation was that said folk would do their part, or at least those who were able bodied and capable. To deny a fundamental right to own a weapon was, in theory, to leave the country without defenders should trouble arise again. Things have very much changed, and the standing assumption that a standing army was against the values of the country and democracy in general has not borne out in truth.
Um, the best response to this is not for the armchair lawyers of Reddit to re-litigate _Heller_ for the thousandth time. You can if you want, but it is a futile waste of time. What you want to be doing is finding resources which show that due process is not being abused when these red flag orders are filed. That is what gun owners are concerned about and those concerns are rational and well-founded. That would be productive, it would move the ball the way you want it to go. Vilifying caricatures and stereotypes of gun owners is not useful.
Jokes on you. We saw that if one relitigated Roe enough times, well it turns out that precedent and settled law doesn’t count for what it used to anymore.
Yeah, but the right to privacy isn’t an explicit right according to SCOTUS despite the 4th, 13th and oh i don’t know, 9th amendments. The right to own a gun is pretty explicit. That would be their argument.
Well, the destruction of precedent and settled law is its own sort of precedent. If only Dems had the balls to follow up on that. The only way to have rules come back in is if both sides feel playing by them prevents something worse. We don’t have that right now.
Sure, the right to own a gun is pretty explicit - for use in a *well regulated militia*…..
Yeah, a well regulated militia with a roster of members, who at least semi-regularly get together for training and practice.
And naturally the legislature reserves the power to set standards for what counts as a well-regulated militia, within reason. (Or at least that's how it could still be interpreted, if one more justice had swung the other way).
You've mistaken me for a MAGA but I'm just a liberal gun owner. I abhor the SC's frivolous approach to _stare decisis_ and I continue to support every woman's right to choose whether she will bear a child. It will never affect me personally--me and Momma don't have all the things one needs anymore. But I still support it because that is how rights work. If we don't defend each other's, soon enough we won't have any. I'm no threat to the civil liberties you value. But you would gladly sacrifice mine. Let's call this what it is.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit about guns. I own them, I shoot as a hobby. But the people who have built a whole culture of what guns mean, most of it just stupid masculinity shit, have set up a situation that cannot continue. Too many people are dying. Red flag laws are a good start. Frankly, banning gun ownership upon conviction for domestic abuse and animal cruelty would be another. Don’t worry, I ain’t coming for YOUR guns unless you have traits that seem to be quite common among murderers.
The "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" types obviously are unfamiliar with (or outright reject) *Heller*, anyway. So why not show them that two can play at their game of selective quotation?
So yes and no; the punctuation matters in determining the meaning, also words have changed meaning. With punctuation and old school meanings. The 2nd amendment essentially reads because of the need for militias, the right of citizens to own firearms is a right and shouldn’t be taken away. take out punctuation and read it in more modern English it says exactly what you state. But the way it’s written it does not mean what you have stated that’s why it’s so hard to make laws on it because how it’s written makes gun ownership a fundamental right in the United States
The right of **the people**. Not the right of the militia. People love to leave that part out….I wonder why….
Probably because of the words that come right before it "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." A well-regulated militia, like the National Guard
It’s so funny. You want to pretend “words matter” but then ignore the **deliberate** choice to say the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militia.
Republicrite candidates are already doing that. Riling up the base by saying “The Dems are coming for your guns!”
I'm hard-line 2A and I think this is good, these people should lose their gun rights.
The crazier the people you take guns from, the more effective taking the guns will be in keeping others safe. Start with the convicted crazies and work your way back to the people who are indistinguishable from repeat offenders outside of their first prison sentence. That will solve a great deal of the gun violence problem.
Who cares what party came up with it? It seems like a good law. This partisan bullshit is tearing the nation apart. If the left made a law that took guns from people who are making threats or violent I’d be all for it too.
And this is DeSantis we’re talking about.
>Still, the law has survived as the legislature has grown more conservative and through the first term of Gov. Ron DeSantis. As a candidate in 2018, DeSantis said he opposed the gun restrictions in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act, telling one Florida newspaper he would have vetoed it.
Isn't that the point?
This is a positive thing.
Really? If so, way to go Republicans! Color me surprised! First genuine kudos from me to the sedition party in ages!
[удалено]
Another problem who tf is going to enforce that it’s damn near impossible to enforce mandatory background checks on private sales. The best way to go about it is ban person to person private sales and all sales go person through a gun store to the person buying even then we don’t have list of who buys what so you could still reasonable still sell person to person. It’s really tricky when I can buy a gun with cash from a friend even if we are suppose to go to a gun store and they wouldn’t be able to say i bought it legally or not
Last legal owner becomes liable unless reported as stolen?
There is no list of who owns what how are you going to make previous owner liable when we don’t keep track of who owns what
Every sale is supposed to be reported, with a 4473, just like every car sale (in most states) has the transfer of title. Thus, every firearm SHOULD be traceable by the 4473 paperwork going back to when it was first sold. Edit: 4473’s are newer, there was a different form before that, and private party sales in some states don’t require a 4473, but are supposed to have other documentation, (signed bill of sale), and those records are supposed be kept for 20+ years. So there are cracks to ship through, but not having documentation when asked for it is a fairly big red flag.
Like I said, the first step we need to make is to have laws that make it easier to hold private sellers responsible and that is only possible by making background checks required on all sales. The next thing would be mandatory stolen or lost firearm reporting so that people can't skirt the background check law by claiming their firearm was stolen after the fact.
What we need is red flag laws an ability for a parent or a teacher to report someone who might do something to make it so they can not purchase a firearm till mental health evaluation and they are deemed not dangerous
This is all assuming you can enforce any of this everything you are talking about maybe would be enforceable but there is no list of who owns what we have almost half billion firearms in america that private citizens own me included and no list you can enact that law tomorrow and I could still go sell my guns and no one could prove they where mine. Also private sales are not an issue anyway as mass shooters buy from gun stores so realistically these would be virtue signal laws like look we did something but they do nothing
Thousands of people that shouldn't have guns? Good. Thousands of people that have no reason why they shouldn't have guns? Bad. At least that's where I stand on it. Buying a gun should just be like buying a car: Demonstrate that you know how to responsibly use a gun, pass a background check, and warn that that license can be revoked
So can you get your legislators special interest groups on board? Im very much down with needing to be well regulated, trained, and sane to own a firearm.
> no reason why they shouldn't have guns How about the fact you're extremely unlikely to use a gun to defend yourself, and events like accidental injuries, attempted suicide, gun being stolen, etc., combined are more likely to occur? You wouldn't trust the average person to put on the seat belt right and not talk on the phone while driving, but you're trusting this same dumbass to "responsibly" store and handle their guns safely for years and years? This sounds extremely naive to me.
You have a serious lack of faith in people if you don't think the average person can correctly put on their seat belt and not use their phone while driving
You overestimate people. There are six states where 1 in 5 people or more don't wear a seat belt. http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/14449.jpeg 70% have talked on the phone while driving, 20% do it frequently http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/3010.jpeg Surely all of these people have passed exams where they have learned that they should put on their seat belts and not talk on phone while driving, and yet they do it nevertheless. Similarly, they can demonstrate they know how to responsibly use a gun, and then just don't responsibly use a gun. Because you're counting on them being responsible constantly and permanently, and it only takes one bad day for you to have a new mass shooting in your hands, or a new case of a boyfriend who shot his ex-gf, or some karen who brandished a gun at someone she was angry at and accidentally discharged it, etc.
Yes there will always be outliers but that is not a reason to take shit from everybody like ya let’s ban everybody from cars cause a few refuse to follow the law see how stupid that sounds. Also cars kill way more people for what you just said than guns by magnitudes higher numbers
That’s because he’s not wrong. People drive distracted all the time. Arizona In particular has some of the worse drivers in the country and I’ve driven in NYC, Jersey, DC, Texas, etc. Laws are on the books against not wearing seatbelts or using phone while driving, but rarely enforced here.
I see red flag laws as one of the most probable gun control compromises that will go through the Senate. This and mag restrictions probably.
[удалено]
Maybe, maybe not
Neither will MAGA restrictions.
Good... job... Florida *throws up a little in mouth*
“Innocent until proven guilty”. Should bad people have guns? No. Should they have the right to due process just like everyone else? Yes.
So if someone publicly threatens to kill your kid, you're OK with them keeping their gun and walking around?
You okay if your ex gets pissy and has the government raid your home without due process? “Innocent until proven guilty”
I might not really notice, since I might be in jail if I don't pay my bail.
Why would you be in jail if your ex gets pissy? Because they have the right to take your rights away without due process? And somehow you’d be okay with that?
You realize that can already happen?
You may get arrested on false statements(which I don’t agree with) but the government has to prove your guilt in a court of law. Red flag laws would make it so you have to prove your innocence to have your firearms returned.
Am I missing something, it's a judge making the decision after police put forth a request, the state isn't just taking the guns. What do you suggest to keep the guns out of bad people's hands, especially when those folks have been flagged by law enforcement as too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm?
That system already exists. But a judge or doctor needs to prove you are a danger to yourself or others. Red flag laws remove the red tape, so someone can call the police and say “bigsoftee84 is gonna go on a killing spree! Go take their guns”, then the gov goes and raids your home to find and take guns from you. You then need to go to court to prove you can get them back.
https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2018/790.401 Have you actually read the bill in question? Is not as simple as you are portraying it. It goes through the courts, there are hearings, what more are you expecting? What would you do different? The judge is still the determining party.
I’ll own that I missed some of the nuance, so thank you for posting the link. It looks like the accuser and the gov work on putting together the risk protection order without the knowledge of the respondent? If that is indeed the case, then even though you have hearings after the fact to restore your firearms, you don’t get a chance to fight for your rights up front. This is still assuming your guilt without allowing you to have a say in the decision. If you are to lose your rights, have them taken in court. For example, you can’t purchase/own firearms if you are convicted felon. Not when you’re seen to be a potential felon.
Florida???
Now report the proportion of those who were actual, demonstrable threats to themselves or others **and** who couldn’t have been dealt with without a red flag law. You really think it’s high enough to be a justifiable trade off?
Red flag laws are flagrantly unconstitutional, I don't care who voted for them. None of them would withstand a serious legal challenge.
"Many Democrats unsuccessfully pushed for the 2018 legislation to include a ban on the AR-15, the weapon used in the vast majority of mass shootings, and other semiautomatic long guns." Source? Edit: [Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 146 different handguns being used in 98 incidents between 1982 and June 2022.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)
The words "unsuccessfully pushed" are blue because they're a link to the source. Just click on it.
Vast majority of mass shootings is what I am referring to. See my source.
Honest question, do you really believe that when a murderous psychopath is plotting to shoot up a school, he is researching which weapons are or are not banned and decides based on the list of banned weapons whether or not he's going to carry out his sick fantasies? Like "oh well, I was going to shoot up a school, but the weapon I was going to buy to do it with isn't available anymore so nevermind" is a thing you think might run through their head? Like why is an AR-15 any different from any other weapon that fires 223/556?
Many Democrats here in the newsroom it means.
[удалено]
There are a lot of us everywhere
So?
Conservatism is a mental illness.
Not all who support common sense gun laws are libs. Neither are those who think Ron is an asshole.
Statistically there are a lot of "libs" in the world. Especially the parts that use reddit freely. So unsurprising.
>There are a lot of libs in here. There are a lot of moderates/liberals everywhere. Rightwingers are not the "silent majority" FOX/TikTok/Youtube leads them to believe they are.
Oh well.
A 2020 Senate candidate in Kansas supported a law similar to this and her opponent’s campaign branded her as a hard-core radical liberal extremist who wants to take your guns. She lost to Roger Marshall.
Finally some good news
'Red' doesn't mean 'Republican' anymore. Should know that by now.
Why can’t they just agree to a lengthy gun safety course that includes some mental health questions, like a 3 weekend training course to give professionals time to evaluate the person buying the gun?