Another day, another mass shooting in America

[JL25and3]

NJ's laws are among the most restrictive in the country, but they don't do what you ask for (the part that I objected to.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey

Pages of restrictions including AR-15 ban, but firearms license is one-time, and process repeated only for new purchases...not "every few years".If you do it right, anything bad enough to yank your permit should do so automatically, without forcing every honest, sane gun-owner to go through a reexamination without cause. I'm willing to do it once. Every few years makes no sense unless it is so cursory as to be meaningless, like what you do for your car that you are so proud of.

I would bet reexamining drivers would save more lives than reexamining gun owners, but we don't see that many people people calling for that.

My drivers license has to be renewed every ten years, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to require a retest. In fact, I think it should probably be harder - or at least more detailed - than the original. Experienced drivers get into lots of little bad habits, and it would be useful to make sure they know how they’re supposed to be doing those things.

[theDurk]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

My drivers license has to be renewed every ten years, and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to require a retest. In fact, I think it should probably be harder - or at least more detailed - than the original. Experienced drivers get into lots of little bad habits, and it would be useful to make sure they know how they’re supposed to be doing those things.

Maybe. I had to retest to get a Cali. license when I was forty so I could drive company cars while on long-term assignment out there, and I learned nothing except what those silly lines before intersections with stop signs are for. Apparently, you are supposed to stop before you can see anything, then go forward and stop again.The theory is to protect pedestrians, but we all know those are a myth; they don't really exist. I didn't do that before (unless there actually was a pedestrian--I did see one a few years ago) and I don't do it now. Oh, and those stupid multi-colored curbs, yellow, green, red, white. I still passed first time.

In any case, constant retesting of gunowners is far down the list of things that need to be done on a 50-state level and adds very little at the margin of actual benefit compared to the resources expended to do it. And, while most gunowners accept and even desire additional gun control, I bet most feel the same way I do about having to repeatedly jump through the same hoops.Why not go for the things that have a real return first?

Brazil retests drivers every ten years, including a grip test that knocks out a lot of old farts.

[fightingirish595]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

No shooting in NC

[Maynerd]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

The elections that just concluded had one republican after another, including Trump, saying that Democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment and take away your guns, which is a bunch of lying BS. Democrats want tougher and more thorough background checks, and a ban on human killing machines being the assault rifles. Nobody wants to take away the rights of citizens to have guns to protect themselves but they need to be able to verify that they have a clean background and a sound mind. That's not much to ask.

This. All of this.

I soundly reject the NRA's slippery slope argument. If we mandated a background check, that does NOT put us closer to "taking your guns away."

I have said this for years...the language in the Second Amendment is awkward and obfuscating, and was created with 18th century weaponry in mind. It needs to be revised, to protect the rights of gun owners while, at the same time, defining a process for acquiring lethal weapons and putting specific limitations on the type of weapon the citizenry has the right to own.

Years past due. Decades.

[Texsahara]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

https://www.theregreview.org/2018/11...t-only-option/

Good article. Not sure how I fell about all of it. This particularly jumped out at me.

But let us assume for the sake of discussion that gun regulations would meaningfully reduce mortality. Pursuing regulations has opportunity costs: The significant time and money required to pass gun regulations—not to mention the time and money needed to enforce such laws through policing and incarceration—could be spent advocating for and implementing other programs. Are there other life-saving programs more deserving of these resources?

Several programs are at least worthy of consideration. Summer jobs programs for teens reduce mortality by 18 to 20 percent among participants. This effect is driven by a reduction in young men killed by homicide or suicide. Cognitive behavioral therapy for at-risk young men lowers violent crime arrests by 45 to 50 percent for participants. Access to Medicaid in early childhood decreases suicide by 10 to 15 percent later in life. Mandating that health insurance cover mental health benefits at parity reduces the suicide rate by 5 percent. Access to antidepressants also reduces suicide rates: An increase in antidepressant sales equivalent to one pill per capita reduced suicide by 5 percent.

In addition, repealing duty-to-warn laws for mental health providers—which require that they report a patient’s violent threats, perhaps causing patients to be less honest—could reduce teen suicides by 8 percent and decrease homicides by 5 percent. Repealing juvenile curfews could lower urban gunfire by two-thirds. And if the goal is to reduce mortality in general—not just gun deaths—then there are many more options policymakers should consider.

[JL25and3]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

This. All of this.

I soundly reject the NRA's slippery slope argument. If we mandated a background check, that does NOT put us closer to "taking your guns away."

I have said this for years...the language in the Second Amendment is awkward and obfuscating, and was created with 18th century weaponry in mind. It needs to be revised, to protect the rights of gun owners while, at the same time, defining a process for acquiring lethal weapons and putting specific limitations on the type of weapon the citizenry has the right to own.

Years past due. Decades.

The Second Amendment may still be semantic gibberish, but the meaning has now been clarified Heller. I may not agree with Scalia's argument (and it's certainly not a textual originalist argument), but it's settled law now.

[Maynerd]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

The Second Amendment may still be semantic gibberish, but the meaning has now been clarified Heller. I may not agree with Scalia's argument (and it's certainly not a textual originalist argument), but it's settled law now.

Hence my argument that the Amendment itself needs to be revised. Heller interprets the Amendment as written. I'm looking for replacement text that would redefine what's Constitutional and what's settled law.

The 18th Amendment was settled law........until the 21st Amendment unsettled it.

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

Hence my argument that the Amendment itself needs to be revised. Heller interprets the Amendment as written. I'm looking for replacement text that would redefine what's Constitutional and what's settled law.

The 18th Amendment was settled law........until the 21st Amendment unsettled it.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment might be harder than repealing the Electoral College.

[Maynerd]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

Repealing the 2nd Amendment might be harder than repealing the Electoral College.

Maybe, but I think a clarification, eliminating the 'militia' nonsense, protecting the rights of legal gun owners, and allowing for the prohibition of certain weapons (magazine size, armor-piercing rounds, assault weapons) would have wide-spread support.

Sure, it's not going to go over well in Alabama and Mississippi and Texas, but as long as the replacement language specifically protects the right to (limited) gun ownership, I think it would survive.

Right now, it says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You have a significant number of people who will always point to an effort toward background checks, magazine limits, waiting periods, mental health requirements, etc. to be 'infringements.'

A clarifying amendment could more strictly define 'arms,' and could also explain what, specifically, would be an infringement. We could also get rid of the horrific passive voice, but that's another issue altogether. But as long as the Second Amendment stands, in its present form, the issue will never go away. It might be hard, but it's worth the effort.

[JL25and3]

Maybe, but I think a clarification, eliminating the 'militia' nonsense, protecting the rights of legal gun owners, and allowing for the prohibition of certain weapons (magazine size, armor-piercing rounds, assault weapons) would have wide-spread support.

Sure, it's not going to go over well in Alabama and Mississippi and Texas, but as long as the replacement language specifically protects the right to (limited) gun ownership, I think it would survive.

Right now, it says "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You have a significant number of people who will always point to an effort toward background checks, magazine limits, waiting periods, mental health requirements, etc. to be 'infringements.'

A clarifying amendment could more strictly define 'arms,' and could also explain what, specifically, would be an infringement. We could also get rid of the horrific passive voice, but that's another issue altogether. But as long as the Second Amendment stands, in its present form, the issue will never go away. It might be hard, but it's worth the effort.

Your dedication to constitutional amendments is admirable. These days, you couldn’t pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sun's right to rise in the east.

[Maynerd]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

Your dedication to constitutional amendments is admirable. These days, you couldn’t pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sun's right to rise in the east.

Sigh. I know, and it's maddening.

The Constitution defines our government methodology. It defines the separation of powers. It protects the rights of the several states, and of the people. It also crafts a method for updating the document, when change is called for. Why are we so hesitant to do so?

When specific issues refuse to go away.......abortion rights, LGBT rights, gun ownership, immigration, health care......the logical and reasonable means of putting the issue to rest is to codify it in the Constitution. Or, we can leave things vague, and argue about abortion all over again each and every time there's a Supreme Court vacancy. That's preferable?

I've said for years that the Founding Fathers would be furious we had amended the document so few times in two and a half Centuries. Hell, Jefferson would probably be apoplectic that we hadn't ripped it up and started over five or six times by now.

It's the governmental rule book and blueprint. Those are things that can be changed. It's not something written by God on stone tablets.

[Jburke]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

One thing to remember about "harmless" gun control laws, is that it sometimes takes gun violence to enforce. Here is what happened recently with one of these "red flag" laws.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bal...story,amp.html

[Yankee Tripper]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

One thing to remember about "harmless" gun control laws, is that it sometimes takes gun violence to enforce. Here is what happened recently with one of these "red flag" laws.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bal...story,amp.html

Crazy people might shoot when you try to take their guns? Water is wet?

[Jburke]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

Crazy people might shoot when you try to take their guns? Water is wet?

This poor guy would have lived the rest of his life probably never using his guns to harm anyone. When you add law enforcement to any equation theres a good chance things go bad.
With cops these days youre lucky if they only shoot your dog.

[2JAY]

Re: Another day, another mass shooting in America

This poor guy would have lived the rest of his life probably never using his guns to harm anyone. When you add law enforcement to any equation theres a good chance things go bad.
With cops these days youre lucky if they only shoot your dog.

What a joke.
Hundreds of thousands of contacts a day between Police say otherwise.