School shooting Florida

[lobosrul5]

What is it that you don't understand? In the U.S., adults are entitled to own and keep firearms unless they are prohibited from doing so for specific reasons. Some states impose stricter requirements than others regarding registration, waiting periods etc., especially for handguns, but once you buy it you can keep it loaded under your bed or on your kitchen table or in your waistband at home. Most states -- but not all --issue concealed carry permits that allow holders to carry loaded handguns concealed on their persons in public. Most states -- again, not all -- also allow open carry, where loaded firearms are carried in public in plain view without any additional permits.

You can't apply the laws and perspectives of any other country to the U.S.

Well, yes and no. Its kind of a patch work of laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_in_the_United_States

There are only a handful of states with nothing in the comments section. NM for example is very permissive... unless you find yourself on an Indian res . Such land accounts for about a sixth of the entire state. Also a lot of states you need a permit to "carry" loaded in your car (I didn't know that).

 

[Bob001]

Well, yes and no. Its kind of a patch work of laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_in_the_United_States

There are only a handful of states with nothing in the comments section. NM for example is very permissive... unless you find yourself on an Indian res . Such land accounts for about a sixth of the entire state. Also a lot of states you need a permit to "carry" loaded in your car (I didn't know that).

The NRA has much more detailed information. Yes, there are all kinds of exceptions. You can't carry a gun into a federal building, and there are restrictions in federal parks. Schools and colleges usually prohibit firearms. In many respects Indian reservations aren't subject to state law. Etc. And I don't know why you would think carrying a loaded gun accessible in your car is okay; it's almost always treated as concealed carry. You can transport it unloaded in your trunk without any problem.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

 

[lobosrul5]

The NRA has much more detailed information. Yes, there are all kinds of exceptions. You can't carry a gun into a federal building, and there are restrictions in federal parks. Schools and colleges usually prohibit firearms. In many respects Indian reservations aren't subject to state law. Etc. And I don't know why you would think carrying a loaded gun accessible in your car is okay; it's almost always treated as concealed carry. You can transport it unloaded in your trunk without any problem.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

Uh, its odd to me that you can carry on your person without license, outside of your car. But before stepping in your car you need to unload, unless you have a license. NM (where I live) has no such restriction.

I'm not in favor of open carry in cities, except in your own place of business or home (then you get to do what you want), just think that's a weird distinction.

ETA: Oh and for federal park land it now pretty much follows the state law that they are in. You typically cant carry into federal owned buildings, or shuttle buses etc though.

 

[Bob001]

Uh, its odd to me that you can carry on your person without license, outside of your car. But before stepping in your car you need to unload, unless you have a license. NM (where I live) has no such restriction.

I'm not in favor of open carry in cities, except in your own place of business or home (then you get to do what you want), just think that's a weird distinction.

Because when you step into your car it's no longer in plain view, no different from wearing a holster on your belt in shirtsleeves (plain view), then putting a coat on over it (concealed).

 

[lobosrul5]

Because when you step into your car it's no longer in plain view, no different from wearing a holster on your belt in shirtsleeves (plain view), then putting a coat on over it (concealed).

I guess, but what if its in plain view from the driver side window? They long ago decided here that your car is an extension of your home.

 

[crescent]

What You Need To Know About Red Flag Gun Laws

Only five states have laws to take your gun away when you’re having a breakdown, but that’s about to change post-Parkland.

Red flag laws, sometimes called extreme risk protection order laws, allow a judge to issue an order that enables law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. Since the Parkland shooting, at least two dozen states have considered enacting similar laws in their states. In Vermont, a red flag law has already passed the both the Senate and House.

According to the Brady Campaign, 42 percent of mass shooters exhibited warning signs before committing their crimes. Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old responsible for the Stoneman Douglas shooting, was on law enforcement’s radar and the FBI had been alerted about his behavior.

Red flag laws are a fairly simple process. Depending on the state, family members or law enforcement can go to court and seek an order that would allow police to remove guns from the individual’s home and restrict their ability to purchase firearms. The person seeking the order must first fill out a form providing evidence of danger to others or self, then the court holds an expedited hearing. If a judge agrees that the individual is a threat, their guns will be removed for a temporary period that can last from a few weeks to a year.

Note that this does include due process, and is temporary. Connecticut's Red Flag law has been on the books for 19 years and has not been overturned.

We frequently hear that new laws won't help , but this is an example of one that could. The Devil is in the details of how it is written, but it is clear that such laws can be and have been written in ways that work.

 

[crescent]

Conceal-Carrying the Day

We debated arming more people in the 1920s as a solution to gun violence. The idea lost then, but it’s winning now.

In 1934 for instance, NRA President Karl T. Frederick testified before Congress: “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons … I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

Fast-forward 30 years to immediately following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In a press release outlining the NRA’s position on firearms legislation was the following concession regarding the constitutionally of “may issue” carry laws: “Only those citizens who have a definite need to carry concealed weapons should be licensed for this purpose … the words ‘to keep and bear arms’ do not mean that any person may carry concealed weapons at [their] pleasure or without the consent of the proper authorities.”

But arguably the most forthright concession came in a 1969 speech by NRA President Harold Glassen. In discussing the constitutional limits of the Second Amendment before Duke University Law students, Glassen asked, “Does [the right to keep and bear arms] mean that every individual has a right to carry a gun at all times, concealed or openly?” Glassen answered his own question: “Obviously not.”

Times have changed...and not for the better.

 

[William Parcher]

Red flag laws are a fairly simple process. Depending on the state, family members or law enforcement can go to court and seek an order that would allow police to remove guns from the individual’s home and restrict their ability to purchase firearms. The person seeking the order must first fill out a form providing evidence of danger to others or self, then the court holds an expedited hearing. If a judge agrees that the individual is a threat, their guns will be removed for a temporary period that can last from a few weeks to a year.

This won't work for some crazies who already understand that Red Flag can take away their guns. They will conceal gun(s) and ammunition so that they cannot be removed from their access.

 

[crescent]

This won't work for some crazies who already understand that Red Flag can take away their guns. They will conceal gun(s) and ammunition so that they cannot be removed from their access.

It won't work for a lot of people. It will work for some people - that's a good enough reason to implement it.

Even if one ignores mass shootings, and accepts that most mass shootings and most everyday murders are not made by mentally ill people (which is true), it still has value. Including domestic violence as a criteria for this could make a dent in the everyday, un-publicized sorts of murders. In the case of domestic violence, the abused person is fairly likely to know whether or not the perpetrator of the abuse has any guns, and may already know what guns and where they are kept. Better chance for successful enforcement that way.

One suggestion has been that people could do this to themselves. A person who has a history of depression and suicidal idealization could do this during one of his more functional periods, put himself on a list that prevent him from buying a gun. Then if he slides into a blue funk, that option becomes much more difficult, therefore less likely to be implemented. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, there is room to reduce that number.

 

[William Parcher]

Even if one ignores mass shootings, and accepts that most mass shootings and most everyday murders are not made by mentally ill people (which is true), it still has value.

Well, I think that most mass murders are done by the mentally ill.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides, there is room to reduce that number.

That surprises me because I would have guessed that most gun deaths are homicides.

 

[crescent]

That surprises me because I would have guessed that most gun deaths are homicides.

Statistics from the Gifford's Law Center

Homicide

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.12

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Gifford's (as in Gabby Gifford) is really good - lots of numbers, everything sourced. Nice and concise, usually avoids inflammatory language.

 

[bruto]

I haven't been following this thread word for word for a while since I'm traveling with a crash-prone computer, but have a couple of observations anyway.

First, I keep running into this all or nothing approach. Red flag laws won't stop crazies from hiding guns. This or that law can still be evaded. No they won't, but they might stop some. An enforceable law that is actually enforced can have some teeth. We had a recent case in Vermont where a Columbine style shooting that was really quite serious and almost certain to have been carried out if given the chance was thwarted largely through the stupidity of the perpetrator and his reliance on social media. Everyone pertinent there seems to have done his job well, including some family, and the shooting did not happen. We keep hearing about how some of the shootings occurring could have been stopped if the right people had read the signs that were obvious after the fact, and then the NRA apologists turn around and say that we should not empower the pertinent people to act on those signs. How near to perfection must a law be before it's considered worthwhile?

It's trivially true, of course, that if we pass a law then the only people outside the law will be law evaders, but that does not by itself mean that the law is worthless. When we pass a speed limit, the only people who speed will be speeders, but that does not mean there are just as many speeders now as before.

Second, with regard to loaded guns in the house and the question of ammunition: a gun is useless without ammunition, and separating the two seems silly. If you think a gun is appropriate in any place, then so its its ammunition. When I was a youngster getting a little firearms education, one of the inflexible rules of gun handling was that one must assume that all guns are always loaded. An unloaded (e.t.a. I should have said an un loadable) gun is a decoration, and you might as well nail it to the wall.

I don't keep a loaded gun in the house, but since I do have a gun I do also have some ammunition somewhere, and if I remember where I put the gun I'll probably soon after remember where I put some bullets. If I ever do need the gun, I'm sure I'll load it inside the house, as the reason for using it would likely be foaming and writhing in the yard. Where else would it be useful to do it? Why else would one bother to keep a gun at all?

 

[William Parcher]

I think that the Red Flag is a good idea and should be used and improved if possible.

I also think that it will be circumvented by some and that those cases will be made prominent (His guns were taken away but he had one more hidden from everyone). I also think that some of the guys who "come to remove the Red Flag guns" will get shot.

 

[Thermal]

I think that the Red Flag is a good idea and should be used and improved if possible.

I also think that it will be circumvented by some and that those cases will be made prominent (His guns were taken away but he had one more hidden from everyone). I also think that some of the guys who "come to remove the Red Flag guns" will get shot.

First step to implementing any Red Flag policy would be licensing and registration. Across the board, this has to happen in any gun control scenario.

Shooting at the gun confiscators? Virtually guaranteed. Not a job I'd like. I wonder if combining smartgun technology with a remote disabling feature is practical?

 

[William Parcher]

The Patriot movement militia types will refuse to cooperate in any way. Same for the survivalist and apocalypse and prepper types.

You will not take their guns and they will not sign or present or agree to anything saying that you can take their guns away.

 

[paulhutch]

Connecticut's Red Flag law has been on the books for 19 years and has not been overturned.

<NRA supporter reply>
Obviously it can't help in any circumstance since the Sandy Hook shooting happened with the law already in place for over a decade.
</NRA supporter reply>

<Normal rational person reply to NRA supporter>
Sure that particular incident wasn't prevented but it helps reduce deaths.
Ref. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6e60e4605f3_story.html?utm_term=.6367ab10398b

A study led by Duke University researchers found that in Connecticut, which enacted a red-flag law in 1999, the measure averted at least 70 suicides over a 14-year period.

</Normal rational person reply to NRA supporter>

 

[Thermal]

Then they would become criminals. I think that if things got actually serious, many (if not most) would realize that role-playing army in the woods is less fun than an actual life

 

[crescent]

First step to implementing any Red Flag policy would be licensing and registration. Across the board, this has to happen in any gun control scenario.

Shooting at the gun confiscators? Virtually guaranteed. Not a job I'd like. I wonder if combining smartgun technology with a remote disabling feature is practical?

I think Red Flag holds could still have value without licensing and registration.

If a man beats his wife and threatens to kill her, she can apply for one, if the threat has some sort of immediacy to it (like an addict in the midst of a relapse, for example). If she can tell the judge or police what guns he's got, and where, it does not matter if they are registered or if he has a license. For that matter, since it is her house too, she could authorize the police to search the residence for guns, or she could go with them under their protection to show them where the guns are - even if she has temporarily moved out. If she has the legal right to be in the house, she has the right to invite the police in as well.

The same could be said of housemates, friends or relatives.

You don't need to have a registry of what guns belong to who (although that would really, really help). You can still have value by relying on witness reports. If the person does not live alone, housemates can help locate and remove the weapons, it may be in their interest to do so.

I don't object to registration, but it would take decades to develop due to the number of refuseniks. We can still do a lot in the meantime.

 

[Thermal]

I think Red Flag holds could still have value without licensing and registration.

If a man beats his wife and threatens to kill her, she can apply for one, if the threat has some sort of immediacy to it (like an addict in the midst of a relapse, for example). If she can tell the judge or police what guns he's got, and where, it does not matter if they are registered or if he has a license. For that matter, since it is her house too, she could authorize the police to search the residence for guns, or she could go with them under their protection to show them where the guns are - even if she has temporarily moved out. If she has the legal right to be in the house, she has the right to invite the police in as well.

The same could be said of housemates, friends or relatives.

You don't need to have a registry of what guns belong to who (although that would really, really help). You can still have value by relying on witness reports. If the person does not live alone, housemates can help locate and remove the weapons, it may be in their interest to do so.

I don't object to registration, but it would take decades to develop due to the number of refuseniks. We can still do a lot in the meantime.

You don't think the accused might move the weapons? And I think a fourth amendment issue might come up if the authority to search is based on 'somebody says'.

 

[crescent]

The Patriot movement militia types will refuse to cooperate in any way. Same for the survivalist and apocalypse and prepper types.

You will not take their guns and they will not sign or present or agree to anything saying that you can take their guns away.

Who cares?

The perfect solution is not the enemy of the good solution. There will be refusniks, the Remainder Problem. That does not prevent improvements from the status quo.

If anything, the patriot/militia types are the strongest argument in favor of gun control, and of the limitation of military-looking or military-derived weapons. If people want to arm themselves in anticipation of war against our own government, then it becomes my problem too. If those people have a history of threatening to use those weapons to support defiance of laws and court orders, then it becomes my problem. If we pass laws to restrict ownership of the weapons they use to threaten our democracy, I won't shed a tear for them.