Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Underhill]

Do you believe we have 'done nothing' concerning gun laws?

I believe we haven't done enough. And by refusing to consider doing more, the anti gun people will control the process.

If you want an example simply look at what happened in NYS. If the NRA had worked with the state, I doubt we would have better, more effectual and less absurd laws on the books right now.

 

[leibowde84]

Regarding the recent mass shooting, I read that there has been prayer shaming. While I think there should be action, instead of praying these things stop. I think it's ridiculous to try to change something that's obviously meant well. I will pray for them is like saying my heart goes out to the victims.

Of course, what the action to to stop mass shootings could be is up for debate. I wouldn't go for banning firearms as the only option as seems to be the trend in public debates.

What about denying them to those with mental problem and those on the terrorist watch list. Republicans denied that option yesterday and I can't figure out why.

 

[Underhill]

Follow-up question...

If the problem is really mental illness, why aren't there more politicians on that side writing legislation to improve mental health care? Why aren't there massive rallies on that side, or constant news narratives on their media outlets aimed at promoting healthier individuals and ultimately stopping all these senseless murders? If mental health is really the issue, and if they really care for those who have been lost, why isn't more being done about it?

2 Reasons. First, we don't have the facilities or the know-how to deal with the mental health issue.

And second, it isn't really the problem. Every country has mental health problems. Few do more than we do to deal with them. So it's a real problem, but not THE problem.

 

[Underhill]

What about denying them to those with mental problem and those on the terrorist watch list. Republicans denied that option yesterday and I can't figure out why.

I was told by a co-worker that it's a slippery slope issue for him. If they allow guns to be taken away from the mentally ill, the next is to simply label anyone who wants a gun mentally ill.

I think it's absurd, but it may be something along those lines.

 

[Revoltingest]

What about denying them to those with mental problem and those on the terrorist watch list. Republicans denied that option yesterday and I can't figure out why.

I can help you there.
Because the right to bear arms is a constitutional civil liberty, it should not be deprived without due process.
But the "no fly" list is rife with errors & cannot be challenged by the affected citizens.
To create a list of people who shall not own guns is a reasonable idea.
But it must be handled in a constitutional manner.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...an-urges-caution-on-gun-legislation/76714608/

 

[dust1n]

I don't think people should be ashamed for expressing empty platitudes. For some people, trite banality is the most they can muster.

I feel their pain. I hope they muster more one day. May the force be with them.

 

[BSM1]

I believe we haven't done enough. And by refusing to consider doing more, the anti gun people will control the process.

If you want an example simply look at what happened in NYS. If the NRA had worked with the state, I doubt we would have better, more effectual and less absurd laws on the books right now.

What do you suggest?

 

[leibowde84]

I was told by a co-worker that it's a slippery slope issue for him. If they allow guns to be taken away from the mentally ill, the next is to simply label anyone who wants a gun mentally ill.

I think it's absurd, but it may be something along those lines.

So, it is just absurd speculation about what "might" happen, but, in actuality is an impossibility?! That's what I thought. That is usually what the NRA is preaching these days.

 

[leibowde84]

I can help you there.
Because the right to bear arms is a constitutional civil liberty, it should not be deprived without due process.
But the "no fly" list is rife with errors & cannot be challenged by the affected citizens.
To create a list of people who shall not own guns is a reasonable idea.
But it must be handled in a constitutional manner.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...an-urges-caution-on-gun-legislation/76714608/

Constitutionally, there would be no issue with the list, as long as professional opinions about the dangers of an individual are taken into account without undue speculation.

 

[Sunstone]

I was told by a co-worker that it's a slippery slope issue for him. If they allow guns to be taken away from the mentally ill, the next is to simply label anyone who wants a gun mentally ill.

I think it's absurd, but it may be something along those lines.

Any good logician would not call a slippery slope without showing why the procession from A to B to C, etc. down the slope was likely to occur. Otherwise, it is too easy to have merely come up with a slippery slope fallacy, which is what your co-worker seems to have done.

 

[Revoltingest]

Constitutionally, there would be no issue with the list, as long as professional opinions about the dangers of an individual are taken into account without undue speculation.

That still doesn't follow due process.
I'm still for denying some the right to bear arms, but it should be fair & constitutional.

 

[leibowde84]

That still doesn't follow due process.
I'm still for denying some the right to bear arms, but it should be fair & constitutional.

It is if we legally grant certain professionals the authority to make such decisions.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is if we legally grant certain professionals the authority to make such decisions.

To imprison someone, there is a hearing, & the accused mounts a defense.
That strikes me as an appropriate process to mimic.
Perhaps in urgent situations, a judgement might be rendered, but with a reasonable right to appeal it.

 

[Underhill]

What do you suggest?

Rules making it mandatory that people lock up their guns. Not that anyone would check, but if someone is killed with a gun that is stolen and the owner didn't have it locked up, charge them.

Making pistols a permitted weapon federally. Most gun crime is committed with pistols. I know in the state I live in, you have to have a permit to purchase, but 100 miles away, that isn't the case.

I also would have no problem making gun ownership and use like driving a car. Mandatory safety classes. Even registration wouldn't bother me, although I know it scares the **** out of some people.

This stuff wouldn't stop anyone from owning a gun, but would make the guns a bit more traceable and harder to obtain for criminals. Although nothing will make it impossible with so many guns already out there.

 

[Underhill]

Any good logician would not call a slippery slope without showing why the procession from A to B to C, etc. down the slope was likely to occur. Otherwise, it is too easy to have merely come up with a slippery slope fallacy, which is what your co-worker seems to have done.

Like that has ever stopped anyone from using it. I'm not arguing mind you. Simply pointing out that 2/3rds of the NRA propaganda is based in slippery slope fantasy.

 

[Underhill]

That still doesn't follow due process.
I'm still for denying some the right to bear arms, but it should be fair & constitutional.

I've heard many make the argument that the constitution doesn't have any provisions in there for taking away someones rights (other than criminality). I suspect any process you implement will not be effective.

For example, if we give psychologist the ability to report people who they think shouldn't own guns to a judge, gun nuts will simply avoid going for treatment....

 

[Draka]

Rules making it mandatory that people lock up their guns. Not that anyone would check, but if someone is killed with a gun that is stolen and the owner didn't have it locked up, charge them.

Making pistols a permitted weapon federally. Most gun crime is committed with pistols. I know in the state I live in, you have to have a permit to purchase, but 100 miles away, that isn't the case.

I also would have no problem making gun ownership and use like driving a car. Mandatory safety classes. Even registration wouldn't bother me, although I know it scares the **** out of some people.

This stuff wouldn't stop anyone from owning a gun, but would make the guns a bit more traceable and harder to obtain for criminals. Although nothing will make it impossible with so many guns already out there.

I actually support the idea of guns being treated more like cars in many respects. You should have to take lessons and show yourself proficient in gun use and safety to have a license, You should have to carry insurance on your weapon to cover any injuries or deaths wrongfully inflicted with it. You should have your license renewed every so often with proficiency and safety checks as well. It should be registered and physically inspected on a regular basis. Those things sound fine with me.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I actually support the idea of guns being treated more like cars in many respects. You should have to take lessons and show yourself proficient in gun use and safety to have a license, You should have to carry insurance on your weapon to cover any injuries or deaths wrongfully inflicted with it. You should have your license renewed every so often with proficiency and safety checks as well. It should be registered and physically inspected on a regular basis. Those things sound fine with me.

Oh great! Now we get to hear from people who support the car lobbies knock this idea down too because the restrictions of motor vehicle operation are too strict and encroach on our god-given rights!!!

Oh yeah...That doesn't happen because we all openly recognize how dangerous cars can be...

 

[BSM1]

Rules making it mandatory that people lock up their guns. Not that anyone would check, but if someone is killed with a gun that is stolen and the owner didn't have it locked up, charge them.

Making pistols a permitted weapon federally. Most gun crime is committed with pistols. I know in the state I live in, you have to have a permit to purchase, but 100 miles away, that isn't the case.

I also would have no problem making gun ownership and use like driving a car. Mandatory safety classes. Even registration wouldn't bother me, although I know it scares the **** out of some people.

This stuff wouldn't stop anyone from owning a gun, but would make the guns a bit more traceable and harder to obtain for criminals. Although nothing will make it impossible with so many guns already out there.

Another punishment for the law abiding.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So seriously, this car-like registration and insurance doesn't sound like a bad idea.

What are the arguments against it?