Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Phony-Baloney Reasonings

I've been hearing people rant and rave that we need universal background checks.

Show me where that would have done a thing. The Asswipe of Pittsburgh owned his gun legally. The Asswipes of Dayton and El Paso apparently did, as well.

But "something must be done, goddamnit."

19 comments:

montag said...

Something needs to be done to improve public safety Comrade. As an intelligent and law abiding gun owner what would you suggest?

Comrade Misfit said...

If you want me to give up some of my rights, Montag, I want to know if you'd be willing to give me something in return.

But that's the rub. Nobody is wiling to agree to that. So what we're talking about is an uncompensated surrender, which is something I won't agree to.

I've owned guns all of my adult life. I've never gone hunting people. Giving up my rights because of what somebody else would do is anathema.

How about this: Ban the mention of the names of spree shooters. Ban publishing their images. Make them non-persons. But that won't fly, will it?

CenterPuke88 said...

I don’t know, that might go. As for the trade offs, would you be willing to support removal of he right to possess a firearm in very carefully defined circumstances that show an active threat or serious concern. I note that I am not saying the police can just get a judge to say so, there must be a very robust system, and I would prefer bonded third party holding of the weapons. There must also be significant sanctions against those who attempt to invoke this by using falsehoods or manufactured evidence, including (especially) those within the criminal justice system. I consider this a trade because the current system in some states is too weak in defending those accused, but not strong enough in others. If you do not consider this fair, would would be a fair trade off?

Comrade Misfit said...

The 1st Amendment thing was offered as an example of what could be done.

But if you want me to give up my rights to something, the proper tradeoff is something I get in return. Some expansion of my rights in another corner of the gun world.

I'll give three suggestions:

1. Remove the restrictions on owning silencers. They are, in real life, nowhere near as effective as Hollywood shows.

2. Treat CCW permits like driver's licenses: Good in state X, good in the other 49.

3. Leave machine guns as Title III weapons, but lift the manufacturing ban. Make using a machine gun to commit a crime (not just this bullshit of having one in a gun safe back home) punishable by 25 years in stir.

CenterPuke88 said...

Well, I’d have agreed to number one up until the recent use of a silencer and people reporting difficulty figuring out where the shooter was...not sold anymore, willing to listen.

Number two, yep, especially if we rationalize the laws/rules across the country!

Number three, OK...let’s get serious about gun crime punishment, not accidental shit, but deliberate. And there are no accidental discharges, just negligent owners/handlers. They need punishment and education...not necessarily jail time, but something to make them think, unless they maim or kill through their stupidity.

CenterPuke88 said...

Oh, and a simple question, Comrade. What is your position on this matter? How would you suggest we address these shootings? What concrete suggestion(s) do you have?

Mark Rossmore said...

Enforce the "well-regulated" portion of the 2nd amendment through mandatory education and encouraging responsible gun ownership.
1) Require gun owners to attend face-to-face periodic retraining or classes, just like pilots must do bi-annuals. We require licenses and training to operate other dangerous machines for which causing injury is an unfortunate by-product. Why not weapons, whose sole purpose is to kill?
2) As part of this, they must pass robust knowledge and/or practical tests. Failure will result in punishment or restrictions. Perhaps they will be unable to purchase more firearms, or they will not be permitted to utilize a shooting range, or get a hunting license, until they pass.
3) Failure to attend this retraining will result in fines or--in extreme cases--give law enforcement authority to seize their firearms. The failure restrictions listed above will also be imposed until said fines are paid.
4) This will allow enforcement officers face-to-face engagement with gun owners. If something feels "off" they can institute a "red flag" procedure. Of course, this all assumes that enforcement would be unbiased on race, religion, gender, etc. which we know is, uh, "aspirational".

That said, a responsible gun owner like yourself or myself would have no issue passing these metrics.

CenterPuke88 said...

So, Mark, we implement a poll tax for guns? That’s the possible side effect of that regime...not that I disagree with any of it...simply that some people will have difficultly finding the time to attend, some will have the only classes held far away, some will be unable to leave work that day. Oh, and those who have no ability to read and write, they have to have special tests, likely at more limited times, etc...

This is the inherent issue and what makes me want the pro-2nd side (generally my side) to be put on the spot and have them explain how to fix the issue with their Amendment, rather than simply whining how this or that restricts their rights. That sounds anti-2nd, but it isn’t, it’s just recognizing that some things must change, and we should all figure it out.

Side note on El Paso asswipe, mother reportedly called police worried about her son’s ownership of an “assault weapon” last year, but wasn’t confident enough to be serious about the call and never gave name nor details to the officer she spoke to (who also never asked, and reportedly told her he was old enough to legally own the weapon). Again, possible points of inflection missed, I wish there was an answer that would make everyone happy, but I doubt it.

Comrade Misfit said...

To be sarcastic, the issue here is mainly young white men committing mass murders.

CP88, the "poll tax" aspect bothers me. History has shown us that government regulation of firearms ownership tends to land most heavily on minorities. I also have qualms about LE having heavy involvement in permitting; the tendency is for the brass to make it as hard as possible to get license.

Beyond that, remember, we are talking here about requiring licensing and training for a constitutional right.

Red flag laws? OK, but there has to be a robust way to appeal it and there should be more than suspicion required. I have seen protective orders used "tactically" in divorce cases; I am concerned that red-flag laws will be similarly abused.

If my memory is accurate, using a suppressor in a crime is a 20-year federal crime. Because one clown used one in his shootings, I am not at all thrilled by using that as an argument to deny everyone else ownership.

We have, in large part, an issue with white supremacists. These guys are feeding off each other and yes, off the eliminationist rhetoric of President Trump. How do we deal with that?

(We've been dealing with the carnage of drunk drivers for decades without doing things like mandating ignition interlocks on all vehicles.)

Mark Rossmore said...

The first amendment has reasonable limits, designed to protect the general populace.

The right to free speech has restrictions, such as yelling "fire" in the movie theatre, threatening to kill elected officials, slandering/libeling in the press, etc.

If you want to hold a large public assembly, you must still acquire permits and ensure law enforcement / medical personnel are presenct. And if you get up at a microphone and rile the people up to the point of violence and looting, you can be charged with inciting a riot.


There are regulations already in place for gun ownership. Three day waiting periods. Background checks. Limits on types of weapons that can be acquired by the public.

Just so you know where I'm coming from: my daughter (from my mixed-race marriage) is 7 years old. Since she entered Kindergarten, she has been conducting lock-down drills. Year after year, her school takes the effort to conduct these drills, to institute locked door policies, to have a police officer on campus at all times, to brief the parents on measures they're taking.

All this effort to protect our child comes from below, from the school districts and the parents and the local P.D.. And all of that merely addresses the symptom: there are some people out there who shouldn't have firearms.

Meanwhile, while we bend over backwards, nothing gets done to address this issue in Washington. Anything sensible, even any discussion of what might be sensible, is shut down hard on party lines. And the rest of us take action to protect our loved ones from their inaction. Washington needs to step up.

Mark Rossmore said...

And I'm well aware that no measure is 100% effective. Fire suppression systems and smoke alarms don't prevent 100% of fire-related deaths. Seat belts and airbags don't stop everyone from dying in a car crash. However, the life they save could be yours or that of your loved one or yohr friend. And those requirements were instituted because a problem was rscognized, and needed addressing.

Comrade Misfit said...

Fire suppression systems and airbags don't have an effect on my driving. Seatbelt laws atre iffy. Now, if they said that not using a seatbelt would assign more liability in a crash, OK.

We could cut down on drunk driving by maybe 95% with mandatory ignition interlocks. How obtrusive is it to puff into a tube? But you know that'll never happen, because freedom, a freedom that is not guaranteed by the Constitution.

10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2017. 373 died in mass shootings in 2018. Which is the more pressing issue?

Ed Baptist said...

The President has already been warned by the NRA not to step out of line. Case closed.

CenterPuke88 said...

A good start would be to Federally fund some studies on these events and individuals. I have no heartburn with a mandate that some pro and anti 2nd groups get some funding to run studies too! Let’s figure out what is going on, and then we can perhaps address it. Let’s let the pros study it, plus some whales from Everytown and the GOA too, the more data we get, the better decisions we can make.

The NRA’s pet block of gun violence studies has caused so much pain, until we understand the true issue, we’re all spitting in the dark. Remember, there are a multitude of causes, Columbine was much different from El Paso, and we need to figure out stuff.

Comrade Misfit said...

So far, the only near-constant among all of these shootings is that the shooters are young white guys. That needs to be studied.

Borepatch said...

I commented at some length over at my place.

https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-seductive-mirage-of-we-have-to-do.html

Rule. 303 said...

Mark,

There is a fatal flaw in your 1st Amendment analogy. A person is free to incite panic, threaten people, etc. They simply cannot hide from the repercussions of their actions by hiding behind the 1A. No on is required to get a public soeakung license, attending training on the legal definition of slander, or otherwise get permission from the government *before* exercising a 1A right.

Every proposal that comes up when it comes to "doing something" involving firearms involves prior restraint and the assumption that someone who wants to exercise that right is a future criminal and someone to be feared.

Tell you what, bow about for every idea that is applied to 2A rights, an equal version is applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional amendments? Require firearm owners to get annual or regular "education" to own a firearm and everyone has to attend annual or regular education to vote, to speak in a public forum, to choose or not choose to follow a given religion, to assemble in groups more than two people, or to engage in independent journalism.

No 4A rights for you until you attend regular classes on the current state of SCOTUS rulings affecting how you can or cannot be searched and when.

Been arrested and you want to invoke your 5A rights? Didn't you renew your 5A license? No? No rights for you?

Mark Rossmore said...

Rule .303. Don't be so hyperbolic. Explain to me how you can instantly kill another human being with a word, a search warrant, or by being silent because you might incriminate yourself?

I also don't see any other amendment with the words "well-regulated" in it. There are already some regulations on guns. Three day waiting periods. Limits on types of firearms that the public can purchase (I don't see 155mm howitzers and RPGs on sale at Walmart). Age limitations. Limitations on where and how they can be carried (from CCW laws to banning them in airports). Felons cannot possess firearms. Etc.

I'm a gun owner myself, with a collection of firearms, and I feel that something additional needs to be done. It won't save everyone--nothing is perfect--but that doesn't mean it won't be worthwhile. Take the three day waiting period: how many murders and suicides has that prevented? According to this study, 750 a year in just the 17 states (and D.C.) examined.

Rule. 303 said...

Matt,

People who are eager to have prior restraint put upon the use and ownership of firearms are either ignorant or willfully blind to the fact that this will allow similar and equally onerous prior restraint will you put on the rest of the individual rights if we have. Politicians who either using incident or create situations where they will have to place prior restraint upon your rights to serve their short-term goals. Even this week, Democrats in Congress are showing support for a law to apply prior restraint to political speech.

Well-Regulated, as described in the Second Amendment text, does not apply to the weapons of the militia but to the militia itself. Congress has the power to call out the militia but also responsibility to see that it is trained and organized for best use. From the very beginning, the militia was required to provide their own weapons and neither the states nor the federal government told them what they have, where to keep it, how to store it, or any other limitations except that they provide a serviceable weapon and enough ammunition to be useful.

The National Guard is not the militia mentioned in the 2A. It is a part of the standing national army, the same army against which the individual state militias were intended to be a bulwark. The government did not back then and does not now need explicit constitutional rights to arm its own standing army.

Your claim that gun control has resulted in the prevention of a number of deaths due to firearm braided suicide cannot be accepted at face value unless a credible source for this information can be provided. It is a well-established fact that a person who is fully intent on committing suicide but not be deterred by obstruction of a certain means. If you can't get a gun, they will jump off a bridge, overdose on pills, hang themselves, or whatever it takes to get the job done.