Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.
Where is the well regulated militia and are they required?
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
o over all I don't have a problem with what you have suggested as I've heard them before. I'm totally against suing manufacturers because someone was murdered using their gun. If the manufacturer sold the gun to the person then fine, but they don't typically sale to the general public. However it is the retailer that sells the gun and they are held accountable as you have proposed.
What needs to happen is that every gun is tracked from manufacture to sale. If a gun is legally sold by the manufacturerer, then their responsibility ends for that particular gun. But I am not sure there is currently any tracking of guns from manufacture to end user. If large quantities of guns are obtained by terrorists or criminals, then they came from somewhere, I think we need to know how this is happening, who is getting them from where. It's complicated, because guns are manufactured all around the world, and we have no control over other countries, but I am talking specifically about the U.S.. If guns are coming into this country, who is importing them if they are manufactured outside the US? Who is selling them to criminals? The dealers? I don't think we know right now. I think the U.S. is a big enough market to have some clout in enforcing accountability. The gun industry obviously has an interest in selling as many guns as possible, they currently have no incentive to make sure all guns are sold responsibly, in fact the opposite. If a gun maker wants to do business in the US, then they would have to start tracking who they sell to. It's not impossible or unreasonable that something that lethal has to be contained and controlled.
Law was passed in California. I personally don't care but bullet markings will change as the gun is in use so probably in long run won't be of any benefit.
They will change, but I believe it will still be possible to match in many cases. It's like a fingerprint, unique to each gun. The technology is there to do it now, it's just that currently you have to another bullet from the gun to compare with, it just expands on that.
his is a very complicated issue but I understand what your stating. However keep in mind we have HIPAA laws in place. Additionally you are basically requiring the government to keep a database on every person in our country that has any form of mental illness.
We are already doing that in some cases. At least in California, If a person makes a suicide attempt they go on a list to prevent them from buying a gun. This would just tighten that up and expand it, but it wouldn't be for any mental illness, just where there is a good chance that the person could be a danger to themselves or others, which is a very small percentage of people with mental health issues, and they would have a right to a hearing if they felt they were unfairly put on that list. This would not be easy, but it's not impossible and I think this is something that has to happen if we are to make any progress on the gun violence we have in this country.
Aside from the current debate, I can't understand how Americans don't want to do anything about this issue. A guy on a no fly list can still legally buy a gun in this country. Why do we accept this as the norm? If we aren't willing to try anything to stop American citizens from killing each other, why care if terrorists come here to do it?
America is gradually and far too slowly becoming more progressive. As newer generations become more educated (which correlates with being progressive), the far right is getting more desperate in motivating its voter base. At this point, all it can do with that is basically create a fear-based hot button issue rotation that concentrates on those voters -actually- being the ones persecuted or in danger. Therefore:
Regulating guns = taking your guns for you
Being more tolerant of other people = taking away your free speech
Making sure religion is removed from the government = banning Christianity
Allowing equal rights for homosexuals = taking away our way of life
It's not as bad as it seems, really. The issue is that what is dying screams the loudest, so you're basically hearing the last and loudest flailing of a dying breed as they try their best to hold on to things, and a machine caters to them. But due to how things are framed, and now that the political system is basically soundbyte based, there is just enough of this left to effectively block real movement on many issues.
I am not for banning anything! You can't put the genie back in the bottle. LOL Once the Chinese figured out how to make gunpowder...... So many politicians have tried to control others. LOL
I am an agnostic who dwells in the hinterlands of Canada....
I ran a trap line as a kid and I know sooo much about animal behavior. LOL
What needs to happen is that every gun is tracked from manufacture to sale.
Read Adjusted Knowledge's post above. This is already done, per federal law.
Also, I have no problem with requiring a gun owner to have liability insurance, but don't expect it to cut down much on gun ownership. I have a one million dollar umbrella liability policy that costs twelve bucks a month.
While we're at it, the "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. If you are in the business of selling guns, you have to do the federal paperwork no matter where the sale takes place. If you are only conducting "casual" sales you don't have to file the paperwork no matter where you are. The obvious solution to this is to require that everybody file a report of sale.
What Silent Buddha said on Page 3 , very accurate. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
I vote for Lisa Rose as next president. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
My belief is this.
Mass shooting, be it deranged loan wolf rampage shooters, or terrorist style shooting like Paris are not a platform for gun control issues. Why do I say this?
The sheer number of gun deaths in American can be linked to the sheer number of guns. Yes
Mass shootings regardless of the religion or absence there of are in fact an act of terrorism.
What does this mean?
That means premeditate determination to cause massive harm and psychological terror. This type of act is not constrained by laws, finding the proper tools to carry out this type of act is only constrained by how much you are willing to spend. This is something i think people don't fully understand from a gun perspective or a criminal mind perspective.
How would stricter gun laws change mass shootings?
Would they make it harder to access firearms?: Yes
Will they make it impossible? abso-f-cking-lutely not.
Someone determined and psychotic enough to plan, and execute these suicide terror missions is not going to be encumbered by laws that limit magazine capacity and gun show laws. Honestly. Its not.
So I say will gun laws will reduce gun deaths in america
I also say they will have little if any baring on RAMPAGE shootings. They may add to that problem but if you spending anytime reading and watching expert info on them the real problem is way bigger and way more complex than just "guns".
There are hundreds of millions of guns in america and a lot of people who want to make a lot of money doing illegal things. Ban all guns, what ever you want its only dollars away. Gun laws wont change the customers, they will only change the suppliers.
I am not opposed to peoples thoughts and opinions on gun control, however using rampage shootings as a platform obscures other issues and capitalizes on fear and emotion.
What if every week terrorist start shooting up the streets in Europe? Its not a gun issue.
And irresponsible gun owner allowing their child to access their gun, violent crime, etc are gun ownership issues, terrorism is another issue in of itself.
I have sold over 400 guns in a 10 year period and forgot to state that I was required to have an fbi background check to sale guns. But I think that was my company policy in anticipation of new legislation.
Will be interesting to know more about how these guys, normal looking guys, normal muslim, not preaching anything radical to others, working in a really good job, quite recently married, living american dream, having a little daughter, suddenly as a pair both after a visit in Arabia turn into radicals and plan orchestreated attacs. Did they have a secret hobby but for becoming extremly religious, that even the family didnt know of? Do arabic radical wifes have such influence on silent peaceful men? The clothing, the weapons, the car, the scenario, press says that it looks like they were on a "mission".
Obama said, at the airport you must not have weapons in your bag, but after you are in the land you can buy what you want in the next shop, part of american life style.