General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRemember that guy who shot his three children?
A flawed system? Really? Are reasonable people supposed to expect a man who beats his wife to have honor?
Considering that 70 women are shot and killed EVERY MONTH by a domestic partner this should be low hanging fruit. This can be fixed. RESOURCES
Wingus Dingus
(8,052 posts)As we all know, dead children are an acceptable price for unrestricted gun ownership.
dchill
(38,438 posts)FoxNewsSucks
(10,415 posts)just don't make them wear a mask.
I don't know how rightwingers don't realize how stupid and ridiculous their positions are.
Caliman73
(11,725 posts)It should not be up to the person who lost their rights because of their own action, to voluntarily surrender their firearms. After they are served with the order, LE should be out at the house confiscating any dangerous weapon.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Wingus Dingus
(8,052 posts)3catwoman3
(23,944 posts)To serve liquor. To do manicures and pedicures. To sell houses. And on and on and on.
I so wish you were in charge of this aspect of American life/culture, Sancho. Everything you say is completely reasonable. I read it ever time you post it.
Here's another basic guideline that would make sense - If an activity in which you are engaged has the potential to harm or kill someone, you need a incense to engage in it.
Zeitghost
(3,844 posts)Was stolen. The State and LE had no idea he was in possession of it. IIRC there is a State task force here in CA to look into those with registered firearms who are under a DV restraining order or who have been "red flagged", but when it comes to criminals who generally possess stolen and illegally owned firearms, it makes things a bit more difficult because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)1) He was not a 'criminal' until he shot his children.
2)Good for CA and the task force. What about the other 69 women shot and killed every month?
He had just been arrested on felony charges days before and was in possession of a stolen illegal weapon in violation of his restraining order. Even with no convictions, he was a criminal. My point being, somebody capable of killing their own children is not going to follow gun control measures and follow ups by LEO's checking to ensure he is complying with the order not to possess firearms isn't going to be very successful if the criminal is determined to obtain one.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Zeitghost
(3,844 posts)n/t
What other conclusion can one come to?
Zeitghost
(3,844 posts)And blaming the system, even in places like California where extensive safeguards are in place, isn't productive.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)surrender his weapons. The task force you spoke of is after the fact and not an active method of removing weapons from the possession of domestic abusers. APPS cross references registered firearms to criminal convictions and restraining orders after it has bee determined that the guns were not voluntarily surrendered.
There is a federal restriction on PURCHASE of firearms by someone CONVICTED of domestic abuse IF the locality chooses to report it to NICS.
So I ask again given the point of view expressed, ie it can't be prevented with legislation, please tell me why I should not assume you support doing nothing. If that is not the case please elaborate on what you would propose to defend those 70 women a month from being shoot and killed by abusive partners.
Zeitghost
(3,844 posts)But this is clear evidence that evil people can still commit evil acts despite our best efforts to put safeguards into place. That's always been true and always will be true.
As to what the solution is, I don't have all the answers nor do I believe there is a perfect answer. I would advocate more education and programs to help victims and potential victims of domestic violence recognize the signs of an abuser and help them get out of bad situations combined with rigorous enforcement of existing laws. But I also know that it will never be enough.
I'm not sure why you've chosen to read far more into my posts than I ever implied, but you're barking up the wrong tree. It seems some are more interested in blaming a lack of government intervention than in blaming the murderous POS that killed his own children.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Even your last reply reiterates that nothing can be done, alas, bad people will be bad people and government can do nothing.
You don't have all the answers so your answer is to abdicate all responsibility.
Follow that process and laws are all pointless. Murder is against the law but people still murder. Theft is against the law but people still steal. Traffic laws are all pointless because people still speed, ignore stop signs and refuse to get liability insurance on their autos. It's all pointless. Give in and take it all on yourself. Government can't protect you, it's all up to you. It's the victim's fault for not being educated.
Going down that line or reasoning leads to buying a gun and taking it all on yourself.
As long as we don't take the guns away . . .
usonian
(9,688 posts)The proposals for gun controls above haven't the chance of a snowball in hell of being adopted. People are nuts for their armament.
This transcends the "gun" matter. The Qanon wacko who killed his two children with a spear gun comes to mind.
What's then doable?
The idea of a "restraining order" is useless, IMO. Too often, it's used after the fact (murder) in the courts.
Is there ANY way of providing children and their guardians some real protection?
IDEAS?
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Laws couldn't prevent this incident, so laws are impotent to do anything, therefore let's just do nothing.
AZLD4Candidate
(5,639 posts)followed by "new gun laws will not prevent this because criminal don't care about laws when they commit crimes."
My counter argument is always: "If that's the case, why have law at all? Tax frauds don't care if there are laws stopping it. Thieves don't care if there are laws against it. Murderers don't care either. Neither do rapists. Your argument are laws are meaningless."
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)because Republicans are pro-life
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Those poor little girls. They didn't stand a chance. What an evil excuse for father.
colorado_ufo
(5,730 posts)Hard to wrap one's head around such evil, but there is so much more.
Why, why, why? So much mental illness.
SunSeeker
(51,508 posts)Response to AndyS (Original post)
ShazzieB This message was self-deleted by its author.
ShazzieB
(16,271 posts)I've been googling to find out more about this case after getting stopped by the LA Times' pay wall, and EVERY article I'm pulling up calls him "the man who shot his three daughters," or something of that sort. I don't understand why the identity of this disgusting piece of garbage is being withheld. He sure as hell doesn't deserve it. //end rant
I just. Don't. Get. It.
ShazzieB
(16,271 posts)I can't read their articles because pay wall, but thought I might as well share the link.
I imagine his name will be all over the internet soon.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,517 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Restraining orders only work on sane people.