Can we make 3 year olds less interested in guns while we’re at it?
More like 1 in 9 if the % ownership is 11%
2 Likes
You’re not helping!!
1 Like
I dunno. I think most shootings are suicides. Then the drug gangs. The spouse killing. Then the mass shootings in this thread where someone buys an AR and goes pew pew pew.
The drug gangs are definitely about criminals, and I don’t know. We could influence them by making guns less common. But I don’t know if anyone cares really.
The spouse, suicide, and mass shootings are less about criminal and more about psychological history. If we could identify the crazy people and not give them guns, that would be great. It is easy to identify crazy people, but hard to not give them lots of guns.
Not always. But we don’t do a good enough job of helping the people that we have identified.
It is here, at least. There are a lot of places that have figured it out, more or less.
Guns are the No 1 weapon in domestic violence killings in the US – just owning a firearm makes an abuser five times more likely to take a partner’s life. People with a history of violence against a partner, including stalking or strangulation, are also far more likely to go on to commit more heinous acts. Earlier this year, researchers reported that more than two-thirds of recent mass shootings in the US involved perpetrators who killed partners or relatives or had a history of domestic abuse.
It is sad that we as a society are unable or unwilling to address this issue. So many victims slaughtered and offered up on the altar of America’s cult of the gun.
1 Like
Here’s the ruling from the 5th circuit. I skimmed it, and it looks like a perfectly reasonable attempt to follow the standard from Bruen.
The district court and a prior panel upheld the statute, applying this court’s pre-Bruen precedent. …
… Rahimi filed a petition for rehearing en banc;
while the petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen. The prior panel withdrew its opinion and requested supplemental briefing on the impact of that case on this one.
Considering the issue afresh, we conclude
that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence
and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster.
The government presents some laws from way back that it claims establish “similar” restrictions. The court looks at them individually and says “not close enough”.
If this holds, we’ll see more challenges along the same lines. I don’t think that many states had laws restricting guns back in 1791.
Gun control people have been looking for “reasonable restrictions”. They often say “I’m not pushing to repeal the 2nd amendment, but we should at least do this ___ .”
If Bruen holds, I think “reasonable” goes out the window. I see harder lines. Gun rights people will get more laws thrown out, murders will continue, and the gun control people will throw away the “I’m not pushing to repeal the 2A” preface.
It’s time to learn the acronym “R2A”.
1 Like
Interesting article on the multi-billion dollar active shooter defense industry.
1 Like
Just gonna toss this in here 'cause I just saw it.
https://www.everythinglubbock.com/news/state-regional/texas-3rd-grader-finds-gun-superintendent-left-in-school-bathroom/
“There was never a danger other than the obvious,” Stuteville claimed.
1 Like
Lol. It’s hard to imagine what he could think this means.
Is it easy to identify crazy people? Most crazy people I know at least had the wherewithal to know they were crazy enough to seek help and/or a diagnosis - else how would we know they were crazy in the first place? I don’t think these people are the ones we neccessarily need to be worried about w.r.t. mass shootings. You still maybe don’t want to give them a gun for suicidal reasons.
I think all you need to get a mass shooter in the U.S. is a lot of anger about something, a gun, and a dumbass.
Not at all.
As a society, we have decided to pay mental health professionals less than other medical professionals (the ACA partially fixed this, but not completely). Within medical schools, psychiatry is one of the least respected and desirable ways to go for a residency, while derm gets the top students. And yet we expect mental health professionals to magically identify who is and isn’t a threat to themselves and others with extremely high levels of accuracy. And to do so in ever shrinking appointment times.
1 Like
Fair point, it’s easy to identify a crazy person that you know personally. The shooters in this thread are mostly recognized by their intimates as – people that shouldn’t be anywhere near guns.
It’s hard for a society to do anything about crazy people, in a way that does not result in abusing them.
And then there’s the problem of how many false negatives you’re willing to accept in an effort to avoid infringing the rights of people who are false positives in any effort society might make.
Yeah. If something is a “right”, then maybe we can’t take it from a crazy person, or a criminal for that matter.
Must be easier in places where a gun is a “privilege”.
The challenge is a little easier to see if you look at it from some angle other than guns.
There are people out there with mental illness that are a risk to themselves and others (even in places where firearms are severely restricted). However, society is limited in its ability to “do something” for such individuals, at least until something tragic or nearly-tragic has occurred, because it’s difficult for society to get such individuals treatment without also capturing a few “‘odd’ but non-dangerous” individuals in the process.
I remember hearing stories after Columbine of teens who preferred to wear black, who liked listening to Rammstein, and tended to be asocial were being forced into counseling just because they were “different”.
As an asocial adult who tends to wear dark clothes and enjoys certain genres of music…those reports have stuck with me.
1 Like
Criminals give up rights. We disenfranchise criminals. I think it’s reasonable to restrict their right to bear arms, depending on the circumstances of their crime.
The domestic violence stuff is reminiscent of a friend who is going through a divorce. The husband refuses to keep the gun locked up, despite state law saying that it must be locked up around young children. Her lawyer advised her that there’s nothing she can do until there’s an incident.
“So after my child is dead I can get full custody?”
“Yes, exactly.”
Is there no avenue for someone to report somebody that keeps their guns lying around? If not, the law seems a bit pointless.
Some laws are not “primary”* offenses, in terms of being something that can start a search or traffic stop. Some states say not wearing a seat belt is against the law, but you can’t be pulled over for it.
*my term, not necessarily a real legal term.
That being said, i am surprised DHR or the equivalent child protection service can’t respond to such an accusation. It might be the lawyer thinks that wouldn’t be a good idea.