Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Donate to DCW


Follow DCW on Twitter
Follow DCW on Facebook
2016 Democratic Convention
2016 Republican Convention Charlotte Host Committee
DNCC
2010 Census

Follow DCW on Google+
DCW iPhone App Info
A Guide to DemConWatch
Tags
FAQ
2008 Democratic Primary Links
2008 Democratic National Convention Links
DemConWatch Archives '05-'08
DemConWatch Speeches
Inauguration Information
DCW Store

HOME
Mobile Version




Search


Advanced Search
Contributors:
MattOreo
DocJess

This site is not affiliated with the DNC, DNCC, or any campaign.

Email us at

Blog Roll
Frontloading HQ
The Field
MyDD
Swing State Project
DemNotes
DemRulz

DCW in the News
St. Louis Channel 2 News
AP
Politico
Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
NPR
Wired
US News & World Report

Gun Law Adjustments?

by: Emit R Detsaw

Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 14:03:06 PM EST


This is for thought and discussion.

There will probably always be a discussion around gun laws and gun controls in America, it’s one of the things that makes our country great. We have the freedom to express our ideas. So in light of the tragedies in Arizona, Colorado, and individual shootings elsewhere, let’s discuss sensible changes to the existing gun laws that will be good for the greater population.

We have the right to bare arms under the 2nd Amendment. Some have argued that means that you can join the military; others say it is unlimited in nature. That debate could go on forever. Instead of getting caught up in that twist, let’s try to look at adjustments to the right to bare arms. When do you give up that right? When and how should that be applied?


One example, if a person is under physiological treatment, should it be up to the doctor to advise or authorize the removal of weapons? Should any advisory be issued to the authorities or is that a violation of a person’s confidentiality that they have with their doctor? What would be the best way to handle such a situation? If I remember right, the cases in both Arizona and Colorado, the individuals were being treated by physiologist. Would have an alert to the background database prevented these individuals from having purchased firearms? Maybe, but it wouldn’t have prevented all purchases or use. If all guns were registered (only a few States do this), once a person was identified by mental health personnel, would it even be feasible to put locks or secure the weapons, even on a temporary basis? I don’t know.

In the case like the one that occurred in Kansas City a week or so back. Would the first incidence of a domestic violence call that involved the police the night before have given them reason to secure firearms for a temporary time to make sure people had a chance to cool down? If a person want’s to kill someone, they will find a means, but the instant lethality of a gun being removed might save a life. Might not, just speculating.

Most can agree that the background checks are a good thing to have. I do too. Twice during my life, I worked selling guns at sporting goods stores. Once prior to the current background system where we only filled out federal forms, and once more recently where would could either call in or do the background check online. I felt more comfortable selling guns to people knowing that they had been cleared by the background check. But I also wondered about the individuals that fall through the cracks, that are mentally unstable, yet never get any dings on the National Background system so they can still legally purchase firearms. The person selling the gun, can refuse any sale. I have refused a few. But it’s nice to know there is a system in place that tries to identify people that should not purchase firearms. But I think it needs to be improved on. I think if you are being seen by a doctor for physiological reasons, that the doctor should be able to provide that data to the database to temporarily prevent you from purchasing a firearm. I think that if the police come to your house on a domestic violence call, that you should have a temporary hold put on you in the database to prevent you from making a snap purchase. I think that all sales, even those between private owners should have to go through the background check process.

Then there is the matter of legally owned guns and how to secure them in situations that are deemed appropriate to secure them to protect public safety. I’m not talking banning or confiscation. Talking more about removing the ability to use a firearm until a certain condition or situation has been resolved. I don’t think any police department would have the facilities to lock up all the guns, nor have enough gun locks to secure them at your location. I think the locks and letting you keep position is the best solution, but you could always get a locksmith to unlock them unless they were identified someway that legit locksmiths would know they are violating the law in picking the lock.

Criminals are going to be criminals. None of this is meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is primarily trying to look at what is the best option to handle moments of opportunity shootings, where they might have been prevented if the person couldn’t readily get their hands on the firearms.

Thoughts?

Emit R Detsaw :: Gun Law Adjustments?

Follow Democratic Convention Watch on Facebook and Twitter. Iphone/Android apps available.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

thoughts (0.00 / 0)
Those are very good suggestions. I have a bad feeling about somebody in the NRA. He owns a bunch of guns legally. He's not mentally unstable in the clinical sense, but still....

Define "arms" (0.00 / 0)
I keep coming back to this - people keep using "guns" and "arms" interchangeably, but the founders never envisaged the types of "arms" that are available today. We outright ban a whole host of them: ricin, weaponized anthrax, smallpox virus, Patriot missiles....ETC....just a few of the "arms" that individual Americans are not able to own.

You want to own a gun? Fine. A pistol. A musket. ANY gun that was available in 1800, I'm okay with that. Also bows, arrows, spears and knives.

But things that can be turned easily into weapons of mass destruction? I think not. How many "semi-automatic" guns can easily become "automatic" with a kit bought over the internet?
What legitimate use could someone HAVE for something like that?

And then....criminals are criminals in places where guns are outlawed. Crime is often committed completely non-violently. Identity theft, large banks, you know. Don't equate "criminals" with "gun wielders", it's not a 1:1 ratio.

The people who use guns to kill will be stopped when we say that as a society, we need to evaluate what constitutes "freedom" and when two freedoms are at odds, which wins?

Personally, I believe the right for a child to go to school with no fear of being shot outweighs ANYONE'S right to bear arms. I also believe that the right of people to mourn their dead at private ceremonies outweighs the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to spew their lies and hatred in plain sight of the mourners.

We have become a society that leans over backwards to protect the guilty as the expense of the innocent. To our national shame.


The purpose of this thread was more about mental illness (0.00 / 0)
and other identifiable calling cards like initial domestic violence incidents, what can be done to try to keep guns and such out of their reach when tipping points are identified. Guns/Arms (I use them interchangeably probably because of my military background) will always be part of our society. I wrote this original post prior to the Connecticut shooting. But trying to apply what I was trying to say to that incident........

Say that Adam was diagnosed with mental illness that had shown a certain level of violence. Maybe Adam had never displayed any form of violent behavior yet, but the classic form of the mental illness or condition that he had has shown to develop aggressive violent behavior over the population. Would that be enough to have a blip put on the National Background Check database so that he could not purchase firearms. Still wouldn't have stopped Adam in this case, he took his mother's guns. So should a law be put in place, that if you have someone with a mental condition that lives with you, be required to have all weapons (another thing I call guns/arms but would also include hunting knives and other tools of death) to be securely locked up? Or even more strict, that the family with such a potential threat not be allowed to have legal weapons at all?

Guns make it easier and quicker to kill. Something needs to be done to address the issue of prevention for currently owned firearms and the potential for them to be used when there were clear indicators that the weapons could be used in an event such as we have seen last week in Connecticut, Oregon, Kansas, Texas, California, and all across the nation. Even the new Legislation that is going to be introduced in January doesn't address taking all guns away. It will basically be an expansion of the Brady Bill and put back in the provisions that expired in 2004. It doesn't address

There is a lot of blame to go around (TV, Video Games, Divorced Parents, medical/mental conditions, availability to get your hands on guns legally or illegally), but I was trying to start a discussion on what could be done in today's society, to preserve freedoms, yet increase the probability that you could keep guns out of the hands of a person, that had a condition that might set off mass causality event.


[ Parent ]


Menu


Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Make a New Account


Currently 1 user(s) logged on.



Subscribe to Posts

DemConWatch on Twitter
DemConWatch on Facebook


View blog authority

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics

Who links to my website?

Sign the Petition (A)
Powered by: SoapBlox