Biden Admin/117th Congress Gun Control

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 01:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: If you don't know your gun is stolen you aren't being responsible. There are safes that can send you a text when they are opened, if it's not secured that's on you. If your kid can get your gun you weren't responsible, if your teenage kid can get to your gun then you didn't take every reasonable precaution.

So, now you're mandating that every gun owner have a safe that alerts them when it's opened.  You're also discounting that a person could have informed their teenager how to open said safe in case they are home alone when an intruder breaks in.

Quote:It's about expectations, you set the expectations for those who own the firearms and they can choose if they are interested in meeting those expectations or if they are too much. If people can't be expected to know where their firearm is and they can't keep it away from people that shouldn't have it, how can we expect them to use proper judgement on when to use it? 

I get your points, I just think you went way too far.  You're placing a huge burden on a Constitutional right.  You're also ignoring the fact that most gun related deaths are committed by career criminals, al this law would do is make felons out of otherwise law abiding citizens, which iis odd as the current trend is to avoid "mass incarceration".   

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 01:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It mattes because your ignorance about the subject doesn't change the fact that your vote for an elected official has the same value as that of a gun owner who knows their stuff.  Also, ignorance leads people to accepting things they would never agree to if they were informed as to the consequences.  This ignorance manifests itself every day in the anti-gun lobby.  One need look no further than the constant haranguing about AR's and other "assault weapons".  All rifles, of any kind, kill far less people than hands and feet, don't even get started on knives.  Banning them is not a "public safety" issue because they are very rarely used to kill people.  So why the constant attempts to ban them, because the ignorant can be manipulated into surrendering their rights because they don't know any better.

This same argument could be made regarding control of dangerous chemical waste, complex regulation of financial markets, airline safety, and all sorts of things.  That is why individuals do not vote directly on laws.  Instead we elected representatives who we entrust to do the research and vote in our best interests.

I agree that so-called "assault weapons" are a bit of a boogie man in gun regulation, but no more than "death panels" were for the ACA or "job killing" is for tax increases.  All of these issues are complicated.  You can't insist that every single person become an expert on every single issue.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 01:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, now you're mandating that every gun owner have a safe that alerts them when it's opened.

You are acting like these requirements are impossible, but the fact is that they are already in place for all sorts of items like cars, explosives, toxic chemicals, etc..  

Why even refer to anyone as a "responsible" gun owner when you claim it is impossible to hold them responsible for their gun.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 01:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, now you're mandating that every gun owner have a safe that alerts them when it's opened.  You're also discounting that a person could have informed their teenager how to open said safe in case they are home alone when an intruder breaks in.


I get your points, I just think you went way too far.  You're placing a huge burden on a Constitutional right.  You're also ignoring the fact that most gun related deaths are committed by career criminals, al this law would do is make felons out of otherwise law abiding citizens, which iis odd as the current trend is to avoid "mass incarceration".   

Nope, I am saying if you are that worried there are things that can assist you in knowing. You are free to not get them if you are confident you know where your guns are, they are only $100 though, and a good investment. If you have allowed your teenager access to said gun you have accepted the liability that comes with doing so. This is how responsibility works, you make decisions knowing there can be consequences for your actions.

This (Career Criminals angle) is a pivot used to try and kill all gun regulations. You let good be the enemy of great and essentially say if you can't wipe it all out then there is nothing we can do. As I said, almost ALL school shootings were caused because kids got ahold of guns they should not have had access to. Let's start with trying to stop kids from getting mowed down in their classrooms and we can go from there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 01:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: Nope, I am saying if you are that worried there are things that can assist you in knowing. You are free to not get them if you are confident you know where your guns are. If you have allowed your teenager access to said gun you have accepted the liability that comes with doing so. This is how responsibility works, you make decisions knowing there can be consequences for your actions.

This (Career Criminals angle) is a pivot used to try and kill all gun regulations. You let good be the enemy of great and essentially say if you can't wipe it all out then there is nothing we can do. As I said, almost ALL school shootings were caused because kids got ahold of guns they should not have had access to. Let's start with trying to stop kids from getting mowed down in their classrooms and we can go from there.

No, you are mandating it because you're making the penalty for something going wrong to be life shattering.  Let's say your teenager gets the gun out and accidentally shoots themselves in the foot.  You now have a situation in which mom, or dad, or both, are going to lose their job, spend tons of money on a defense attorney, have a criminal record and basically destroy their lives going forward.  You want to solve this problem by making more people into criminals, this is bad policy.  I'm sure you have good intentions but the fallout from such a law would be huge.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you are mandating it because you're making the penalty for something going wrong to be life shattering.  Let's say your teenager gets the gun out and accidentally shoots themselves in the foot.  You now have a situation in which mom, or dad, or both, are going to lose their job, spend tons of money on a defense attorney, have a criminal record and basically destroy their lives going forward.  You want to solve this problem by making more people into criminals, this is bad policy.  I'm sure you have good intentions but the fallout from such a law would be huge.

No, again I am offering up ways for irresponsible owners to be more responsible since knowing where your weapon seems like a basic tenet of responsibility. What if the kid accidentally shoots his friend in the head instead? Why should that other family have to go through that because you can't know where your gun is? That sure seems like lives are ruined going forward, doesn't it?

I want to solve this problem by demanding accountability.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 01:52 PM)Au165 Wrote: No, again I am offering up ways for irresponsible owners to be more responsible since knowing where your weapon seems like a basic tenet of responsibility. What if the kid accidentally shoots his friend in the head instead? Why should that other family have to go through that because you can't know where your gun is? That sure seems like lives are ruined going forward, doesn't it?

I want to solve this problem by demanding accountability.

Yes, but you're making the penalty huge.  With your proposal a family who has a child commit suicide with the family firearm get the enjoyable salt in the wounds of now being prosecuted for a felony as well.  You want accountability, but you also want to criminalize non-compliance with what you think constitutes what is responsible enough.  You're creating criminals out of people who would otherwise never break the law.  Any law that would do so is a bad law.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 02:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, but you're making the penalty huge.  With your proposal a family who has a child commit suicide with the family firearm get the enjoyable salt in the wounds of now being prosecuted for a felony as well.  You want accountability, but you also want to criminalize non-compliance with what you think constitutes what is responsible enough.  You're creating criminals out of people who would otherwise never break the law.  Any law that would do so is a bad law.

The penalty should be huge. I want to criminalize negligence, especially when the negligence leads to loss of life.

Let’s flip this though. If asking people to know where their guns are and to keep them away from children is too much. What is an acceptable ask in terms of gun ownership responsibility that could actually spur changes in current gun ownership behavior?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 02:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: The penalty should be huge. I want to criminalize negligence, especially when the negligence leads to loss of life.

Let’s flip this though. If asking people to know where their guns are and to keep them away from children is too much. What is an acceptable ask in terms of gun ownership responsibility that could actually spur changes in current gun ownership behavior?

Well, I'd start by actually addressing real problems, instead of focusing on people who account for a miniscule amount of shootings.  I'd actually stick to criminalizing real criminals instead of turning law abiding citizens into criminals.  It's just an odd proposal considering the current trend towards leniency in the criminal justice system.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2021, 02:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, I'd start by actually addressing real problems, instead of focusing on people who account for a miniscule amount of shootings.  I'd actually stick to criminalizing real criminals instead of turning law abiding citizens into criminals.  It's just an odd proposal considering the current trend towards leniency in the criminal justice system.

Root cause mitigation: https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/root-cause-mitigation-2/

[fredtoast]

I see that the pro-gun side are using the classic spin of just addressing "deaths" instead of looking at the real problem.  Three times as many people are shot each year as die from gunshot wounds.  Then there are hundreds of thousands of crimes committed with guns when they are never discharged.  Gun "deaths" are only a small fraction of gun "violence".

They accuse gun regulation advocates of being disingenuous for including suicides in gun death totals, but their spin on the facts is actually much more extreme.

[Au165]

I was thinking about the fact that you have a right to have a child if you wish in this country. If someone were to ask you where your kid is and you don't know you'd be considered an irresponsible parent. If you continue to not know where your kid is, say skipping school, you can be held criminally liable for not knowing where your child is. If you are so bad at knowing where your kid is they can be taken away from you and potentially you could face greater criminal liability. Your child has legs and a mind of their own, knowing where they are can be hard, a gun does not have either but apparently asking someone to know where it is, is a bridge too far.

The problem that is going to continue to boil over is the idea that gun rights are beyond reproach. If people aren't willing to give an inch here and demand responsibility, the push will get stronger and they will eventually go for more. If you want to argue that in the child example you won't be held criminally liable for their actions, I would counter you can be held financially liable. I have never been a fan of the "gun insurance" idea because I think it does disproportionally disenfranchise gun ownership to poorer people, but I would entertain that discussion I guess if people wanted to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 02:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Root cause mitigation: https://theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/root-cause-mitigation-2/

Careful, some of those facts are going to trigger people.

Honestly no pun intended.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Careful, some of those facts are going to trigger people.

Honestly no pun intended.

Did they explain why the root causes don't impact other similarly industrialized countries as they do us? I scanned it but didn't see that addressed. All the things they were calling out are present in other countries that don't see anything remotely similar to our issues with gun violence. 

I am serious, I scanned it quickly and have never really seen a good explanation when these things are brought up other than "it's complicated".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: I was thinking about the fact that you have a right to have a child if you wish in this country. If someone were to ask you where your kid is and you don't know you'd be considered an irresponsible parent. If you continue to not know where your kid is, say skipping school, you can be held criminally liable for not knowing where your child is. If you are so bad at knowing where your kid is they can be taken away from you and potentially you could face greater criminal liability. Your child has legs and a mind of their own, knowing where they are can be hard, a gun does not have either but apparently asking someone to know where it is, is a bridge too far.

Being a crap parent can result in your kid(s) being taken away, but it won't result in criminal charges.  If it did then more than half of the parents of minors I've dealt with over my career would be in prison.

Quote:The problem that is going to continue to boil over is the idea that gun rights are beyond reproach. If people aren't willing to give an inch here and demand responsibility, the push will get stronger and they will eventually go for more. If you want to argue that in the child example you won't be held criminally liable for their actions, I would counter you can be held financially liable. I have never been a fan of the "gun insurance" idea because I think it does disproportionally disenfranchise gun ownership to poorer people, but I would entertain that discussion I guess if people wanted to.

I disagree.  The problem will continue to be a problem as long as we refuse to confront what the real problem is.  The real problem, is not Joe and Jane Smith gun owner.  Criminalizing them will do nothing to stop gun violence and will only ruin the lives of people who would otherwise be completely law abiding.  As for your closing statement, that's why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, to prevent those people from doing exactly what you state.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Being a crap parent can result in your kid(s) being taken away, but it won't result in criminal charges.  If it did then more than half of the parents of minors I've dealt with over my career would be in prison.


I disagree.  The problem will continue to be a problem as long as we refuse to confront what the real problem is.  The real problem, is not Joe and Jane Smith gun owner.  Criminalizing them will do nothing to stop gun violence and will only ruin the lives of people who would otherwise be completely law abiding.  As for your closing statement, that's why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, to prevent those people from doing exactly what you state.

It won't? Sadly, Kamala Harris is the one who pushed for "tough on truancy".

Quote:California Penal Code

270.1(a) PC states that “A parent or guardian of a pupil of six years of age or more who is in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and who is subject to compulsory full-time education or compulsory continuation education, whose child is a chronic truant as defined in Section 48263.6 of the Education Code, who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil’s school attendance, and who has been offered language accessible support services to address the pupil’s truancy, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. A parent or guardian guilty of a misdemeanor under this subdivision may participate in the deferred entry of judgment program defined in subdivision (b).”

As to the rest, yea we will just disagree. I like accountability, and I think gun ownership should require accountability. It will come eventually as much as people want to fight it I was just throwing out ways it only targets "irresponsible" gun owners rather than the group, but again if that can't be done it will eventually come to everyone and just be a burden.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:27 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did they explain why the root causes don't impact other similarly industrialized countries as they do us? I scanned it but didn't see that addressed.

Well, they are starting to.  One need look no further than London for an example.  But you are correct, no other country has made gun ownership a right and guns are not readily available on most other, similar, countries.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate/#:~:text=In%202019%2F20%20the%20crime,%2F17%20and%202017%2F18.

Quote:All the things they were calling out are present in other countries that don't see anything remotely similar to our issues with gun violence.

 


Yes, it is hard to use something you can't acquire.

Quote:I am serious, I scanned it quickly and have never really seen a good explanation when these things are brought up other than "it's complicated".

Sure you have, it's because guns are readily available here.  This is not going to change, ever, without a complete collapse of the current system of government.  Seeing as how that is something you cannot control, or cease, you'd do better looking at other areas where action would actually produce results.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it is hard to use something you can't acquire.


Sure you have, it's because guns are readily available here.  This is not going to change, ever, without a complete collapse of the current system of government.  Seeing as how that is something you cannot control, or cease, you'd do better looking at other areas where action would actually produce results.

...so it would almost seem like trying to restrict access to firearms to those who shouldn't have them is a good idea? How do we do that? Well slapping people on the wrist doesn't tend to work, so you have to use a heavier deterrent to spurn action.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: It won't?

Dude, you know how rare it is for a parent to actually be charged due to a minor's chronic truancy?  That was before the wave of "progressive" DA's in CA.  

Quote:As to the rest, yea we will just disagree. I like accountability, and I think gun ownership should require accountability. It will come eventually as much as people want to fight it I was just throwing out ways it only targets "irresponsible" gun owners rather than the group, but again if that can't be done it will eventually come to everyone and just be a burden.

I love accountability. I also recognize that there's a line between holding people responsible for bad decisions and criminalizing non-criminal conduct.  You can have a police state with a high degree of personal accountability, in fact it's much easier. Freedom is messy and not everyone handles it well, but it's still preferable to the alternative.  Also, as stated, you're targeting a problem that only accounts for a small fraction of the overall problem, and doing so in a highly punitive and disruptive fashion.  Like I said earlier, I get that your heart's in the right place, but the idea is not a good one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2021, 03:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...so it would almost seem like trying to restrict access to firearms to those who shouldn't have them is a good idea? How do we do that? Well slapping people on the wrist doesn't tend to work, so you have to use a heavier deterrent to spurn action.

You are correct, we should be holding career criminals to account for illegal possession of firearms or using them in a crime.  Oddly enough violence hotspots like Chicago are doing the exact opposite.  How strange.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-kim-foxx-felony-charges-cook-county-20200810-ldvrmqvv6bd3hpsuqha4duehmu-story.html