Can we please get rid of the false numbers concerning Norway? They are an aberration based on one horrible incident and the US number of gun deaths was higher even during that year.
@Vladenshlutte - so called smart guns have a more sophisticated trigger lock so they can’t be used against the legitimate owner. Something like a fingerprint ID. A gun shop in Maryland that wanted to sell them abandoned the plan because it got too many death threats from gun people who considered it an infringement of their rights.
@Vladenschlutte, it is rude to hop in and say you don’t have time to read the thread, then proceed to make several posts on topics that were covered earlier. No one wants to repeat the points made previously… go back and read it all.
Yep. JustOneDad says no civilians would have guns if it were up to him - sounds like a full repeal advocate to me. And I do not recall any gun control advocates responding that that makes no sense and is a straw man.
How would that stop mass shootings though? Perhaps it’s still a good idea to have an option for this but what stops the owner from committing a mass shooting?
That article doesn’t address mass shootings in any meaningful way. There’s no clear way that identifying bullets or requiring a PIN or fingerprint for operating a firearm stops anyone from committing a mass shooting. These aren’t necessarily bad ideas, but I don’t see how they’re relevant here.
Smart guns are a start. Think broader scale. How many guns are stolen or sold illegally? Its one approach to the overall issue of gun safety. The resistance to is is incomprehensible.
Yes, it is just one piece, but it would render useless any weapon that is stolen. People still steal smart phones, but isn’t it nice that we can disable them remotely and make them about as useful to the thief as a paperweight?
33,000 Americans are victims of gun violence every year, the majority suicides. Smart guns wouldn’t have stopped the Umpqua shooter, but they’d stop a lot of gun deaths of children.
And before you pop up and say that people who killed themselves using guns would have just used another method, no they wouldn’t. The numbers are clear on this. Suicide is impulsive, and if we take away easy methods of suicide, suicide deaths will drop. That’s why bridges have fences that are hard to climb: the person who was going to jump off a bridge, but can’t because there’s a fence, doesn’t in general go home and find another way to die. The impulse passes and they stay alive. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
Good question. I have not a clue. It would be nice though to be able to be ahead of the game there. It may be that issue can never be solved because many cases of mental illness are not that easy to diagnose.
Symptomatically, the vast majority of mental illness just comes off as behaviorally strange or weird, not dangerous, but then the person snaps. There was no law that could have stopped this killer in Oregon from getting a gun legally. He had the same right to purchase as Trump who has a CCP for he had a similar criminal-free record.
It may turn out that like actuaries and insurance companies accept a certain amount of loss with an activity. It may be that as a country, to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution, we accept a certain amount of loss associated with errant people getting their hands on guns. Similar to how we accept a certain amount of loss to drunk drivers, and that does not stop people from driving or give them the fear of driving on the road.
I’m sure people will figure out how to hack these. There would have to be a way to reprogram the owner anyway since people can sell their firearms. The only use of this I see is that where someone defending themselves has a scuffle with the bad guy for their firearm, the bad guy will be prevented from using it against them.
Off hand, I don’t believe this but I’ll read a little before I respond further. Additionally, personally my view is that suicide is not a problem and should be a right but I realize that is not the normal view.
And CF, actually most suicides are not impulsive. The person typically has a plan, an intent and a means. Its the means (when a gun) that makes it, sadly, all too easy to act on the intent.
An argument I read against prohibiting purchases by the mentally ill goes something like: they will be less likely to seek professional help if it means they will lose a Constitutional right.
I skimmed through but haven’t read all of them. It looks that most simply require that the person have never been found not guilty by reason of mental defect/insanity and that they are not currently involuntarily committed to a mental asylum. Those sound like fine regulations to me, though again, they don’t seem to stop mass shootings.
Start taking away constitutional rights from someone who has not committed one crime, has not harmed anyone and has never threatened to harm anyone leads to the “Well, if we can take his rights away based solely on our judgement, then we can make up other reasons take other people’s right s away even if they have done nothing wrong.”
Would be no different than Cuba and Venezuela where people get jailed for whatever reason the government decides that day. Rights are subjective, not guaranteed or protected.
Had to have this certified by doctor to get my CCP, as well as verified by background check. Still, as you said, would not stop a mass shooter or any shooter really who has never been in trouble or diagnosed.
Yes, most of the current laws, including Oregon, require adjudication or involuntary commitment for the mental illness prohibition to kick in. They would not have stopped the Umpqua shooter from buying his guns. How far do we want to go with the mental illness prohibition? Are professional therapists willing to make the call on who is or is not a risk? Why would people seek help if it means they may never be eligible for any job involving firearm use?