Lindsey Graham: Democrats, GOP Can ‘Come Together’ for Gun Confiscation Law

[rpenmanparker]

You are clearly confused on the subject or a willing participant. It is 100% about government and what power we give to them, power they would use against you. Power to confiscate weapons, power to put you in jail, power to rule your every day life in the end. Wake up.

I AM up.

 

[BSA1]

The rise in disbelief in private gun ownership is a natural result of the urbanization of the society.

What college professor taught you that line?

 

[rpenmanparker]

What college professor taught you that line?

No comment. I’m known as a troublemaker around here. So how come I am the only one trying to follow the moderator’s lead?

 

[GEM]

As a retired college professor who studied firearms issues, read the literature, attended the professional conferences in the area (such as the American Society for Criminology), it is pretty well researched that urbanization is not conducive to supporting gun rights.

There is also a shift from hunting/sport to self-defense as the major driver of new gun purchases. That might counter a touch the urbanization effect but so far urbanization seems stronger.

 

[rpenmanparker]

As a retired college professor who studied firearms issues, read the literature, attended the professional conferences in the area (such as the American Society for Criminology), it is pretty well researched that urbanization is not conducive to supporting gun rights.

There is also a shift from hunting/sport to self-defense as the major driver of new gun purchases. That might counter a touch the urbanization effect but so far urbanization seems stronger.

You mean I got it right? Holy guacamole?

 

[Old Dog]

Instead of complaining, with some justification about the laws, I would be interested in what you would propose to deal with people who seem not able to handle their affairs or present behavior and threats that same dangerous. How do you separate them from the enraged Ex scenario? Just being negative won't fly in today' world.

Those are all good questions. In previous decades, families looked out for those members in their families who suffered from mental health issues, dementia, anger problems and stress-related disorders. In today's society, where kids are lucky to grow up in families with two parents and the main mode of communication is via technology and not in person, these problems can go unnoticed, undocumented and unattended to for far too long.

But the passage of intentionally vague legislation to remove only one type of weapon from any individual absent objective, consistent and continued presence with these individuals, along with appropriate documentation, is of grave concern. It is simply another unneeded law that addresses a tool, not the real symptoms.

 

[BSA1]

We have gone off the rails. I will give it a chance to continue. We should discuss:

1. Is there a way to determine who is truly dangerous to own firearms in a fair manner that respects Constitutional rights?
2. If there is such a determination, can it be acted on in a timely and fair manner?

Liberals, conservatives, Holocaust metaphore - let's skip that.

BTW, psychiatric or psychological problems in general do not predict violence. There are specific warning signs and behaviors for a small number of circumstances. Are the Red Flag laws too general? That's a point that must be discussed. Various psychological and psychiatric organizations have brought this up and mentioned the risk that folks who need help won't seek it because of threatened stigma and legal actions.

So let's focus on the problem and not the usual side insults.

Mental illness contributing to violent crime is all part to the BIG LIE campaign against private ownership of guns.

Think about it for a minute. How much does the average person know about the different types of mental illness, the behavior someone may have and the treatments available?

How many times week do we see on the TV News about a report of a violent crime taking place with the News Babe (she is not a true news investigator. She is chosen because she pretty, has nice teeth and repeats what she is told to say). Our News Babe is on the scene delivering a live report looking for someone to interview. She can't get a police officer so she interviews someone who claims to know the shooter well. The person comes on, tells how the shooter is bi-polar, how they knew he was going to do something like this and how the police would not do anything to stop him before it happen.

The person very likely never even graduated from High School, let alone know what Bi-Polar Disorder is (probably thinks it is a disease from Alaska or some cold place), hardly knew the shooter and just looking for their moment of fame on TV.

We seek simple solutions to complex problems.

The deck is also stacked against us by the AMA and CDC which both are very anti-gun.

 

[GEM]

Surprise!

It may surprise the gun world that people actually research claims made by the lay people. Legal, psychiatric/psychological, anthropological, media, human factors, engineers, experts etc. have looked into many issues that are found in gun social media.

 

[Spats McGee]

We have gone off the rails. I will give it a chance to continue. We should discuss:

1. Is there a way to determine who is truly dangerous to own firearms in a fair manner that respects Constitutional rights?
2. If there is such a determination, can it be acted on in a timely and fair manner? . . . .

Quoting GEM just because he's the one that posted the questions. Let's not forget that there are already legal mechanisms by which a person can be involuntarily committed, rendering them a prohibited person. I haven't done any legal research on this, but my somewhat-educated guess is that petitions for involuntary commitments can generally be filed by police, prosecuting attorneys, and family members. Red Flag laws dramatically expand the scope of those who can file a report and also put the cart before the horse by authorizing the seizure of (presumably) legally possessed property before any challenge to the petition is allowed.

And yeah, they're just begging for abuse. That's not a legal challenge, but it's certainly a real consideration.

 

[Old Dog]

The deck is also stacked against us by the AMA and CDC which both are very anti-gun.

As well as AARP ...

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .The deck is also stacked against us by the AMA and CDC which both are very anti-gun.

As well as AARP ...

And the ABA. . . .

 

[Old Dog]

Red Flag laws dramatically expand the scope of those who can file a report and also put the cart before the horse by authorizing the seizure of (presumably) legally possessed property before any challenge to the petition is allowed.

And yeah, they're just begging for abuse. That's not a legal challenge, but it's certainly a real consideration.

I'm somewhat surprised there are not more challenges to these laws as being a violation of the Constitutional right to due process.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm somewhat surprised there are not more challenges to these laws as being a violation of the Constitutional right to due process.

I'm hoping we'll see more. There just aren't that many RFLs in place right now, AFAIK.

 

[BSA1]

As a retired college professor who studied firearms issues, read the literature, attended the professional conferences in the area (such as the American Society for Criminology), it is pretty well researched that urbanization is not conducive to supporting gun rights.

There is also a shift from hunting/sport to self-defense as the major driver of new gun purchases. That might counter a touch the urbanization effect but so far urbanization seems stronger.

Then all is lost. At least on the West Coast, in the NE and in Florida.

Only how does your research jive with the increase of gun ownership by women and minorities? I submit the issue is much more complex than simple urbanization.

The 2A is all about the right of self-defense which is exactly counter to the position of academics. Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens is now arguing for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Old Dog]

My state, which one of the original states to go with "Extreme Risk Protection Orders," is seeking to expand ERPOs to minors -- even when they have no legal right to possess guns.

Here's a take on this state from a member of the liberal SPD:
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/09/26/seattle-police-red-flag-laws-gun-violence

 

[BSA1]

As well as AARP ...

I am dismayed at how many gun owners belong to the AARP. My In-Laws that are conservative and claim to support rbka totally blow off the AARP anti-gun position and are proud to belong to it because it helps to protect retirees (or so they think).

 

[CapnMac]

This is clearly a divisive issue. And, when we are divided, the antis are enriched.

We here are very much caught up in the minutae of this thing. And in arguing over whether needles are branches ignores the other trees in the forest.

We already have any number of contradictory laws concerning whether a person is or is not an emminent and clear risk to themselves or others is already thorny enough. What we also have to examine is the application of rfl on those who are co-domiciled with persons who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others.

Uncle Z may have no idea Nephew Q is such a risk; should Uncle Z's house be raided and all his arms confiscated just for living i nthe same neighborhood as Nephew Q? The Same Parish/County, the same State? Few of these laws state that all the parties such confiscations are subject to, all, each and every one, properly recieve due process.

Further, if Nephew Q is such a risk, and it is deemed necessary to remove all objects of harm from Q's reach, why is it only firearms? Gasoline & detergent? Ammonia and chlorinated cleaners? Blunt objects, rope, fuel gasses? OTC and prescription meds? (Statistically, many of those are more used for self harm and harm of others than firearms.)

This is about control. It's about confiscating guns. It's about ostracizing gun ownership.

 

[GEM]

Mental illness contributing to violent crime is all part to the BIG LIE campaign against private ownership of guns.

That is not true. It is not the major component to violent crime but there is a known but small subset of disorders which do predict violent behavior. In general, mental illness does not and most of these folks are more likely to be a victim. So if we discuss the issue, you have to know what you are talking about. As Spats pointed out is the overgeneralized expansion of the laws that is troublesome without some sort of due process.

Also, while some of the organizations are anti firearm as are the most of the psychiatric/psychological organizations, they are also against the stereotyping of the mentally ill and over expansion of the laws. They are in favor of AWBs and UBCs but not for specific mental illness related reasons.

Mental illness has also been used as an excuse by some gun rights organizations to argue against AWBs as only the mentally ill would use them. This didn't go anywhere as the data do not support that all rampage folks have defined illness. Also, pushing it does lead to Red Flag laws - so that initial push was pulled back. There was a brief flurry of blaming autism (stupid - no evidence) and then video games (that was pulled back).

The problem with video games was that argument was based on studies supposedly demonstrating that exposure led to aggressive behavior. However, that research has replication problems, the dependent measures might lack ecological validity and also that the effects were short lived. Even worse for the attempt to blame video games, the methodology was applied to exposure to firearms images or guns themselves and also (supposedly) produced aggressive behavior. Again the research had problems. But you couldn't use video games as causal as compared to having an EBR as both would (if true) produce the same behavior. What a dilemma!

If one read what I wrote rather than being reactive, I said that the self-defense factor might be a factor counter to urbanization. Of course, it is complex but the major driver of antigun laws seems to come from the urban area voters and legislators.

Next, saying things like

The 2A is all about the right of self-defense which is exactly counter to the position of academics.

is flat out an overgeneralization. There are quite a few academics involved in supporting gun rights. Here's one that testified for campus carry in Texas and was seen on the San Antonio, Houston, Dallas and Austin news shows for his testimony and in those newspapers. There are others - so spare me the generalizations which are insulting and wrong.

The Second Amendment is more than self-defense. It is equally about the defense against tyranny. If you pay attention, you will see the rise of minority gun organizations as they fear the rise of tyranny from a particular political viewpoint as well as self-defense from extremists of a certain political strain.

 

[Pudge]

But don’t let that be a cop out, an excuse for delaying any action forever. We aren’t totally ignorant about mental incompetence. So what if a few folks are not treated perfectly by a rule? This world isn’t perfect. We have to do the best we can right now.

If I said we already are doing the best we can, could you prove that the laws which allow confiscation without any objective standards would make things better?

 

[Old Dog]

Well said, GEM.

I said that the self-defense factor might be a factor counter to urbanization. Of course, it is complex but the major driver of antigun laws seems to come from the urban area voters and legislators.

I think in my region, the self-defense factor certainly comes into play to counter the whole urbanization thing, and I also see more and more women and minorities getting into firearms specifically for that reason.

Unfortunately, the sheer numbers of those growing up in households without guns and hunters is exponentially increasing and is overwhelming even the growing numbers of folks in the urban areas who "get into guns."

 

[GEM]

If I said we already are doing the best we can, could you prove that the laws which allow confiscation without any objective standards would make things better?

That is an empirical question for any new law or procedure. Did mandatory sentences aid in fighting addiction?

The question is also whether the violation of good people's rights are justified by a diminution of violence - that really happened.

What ratio of false alarms vs. correct hits is acceptable?

 

[rpenmanparker]

Then all is lost. At least on the West Coast, in the NE and in Florida.

Only how does your research jive with the increase of gun ownership by women and minorities? I submit the issue is much more complex than simple urbanization.

The 2A is all about the right of self-defense which is exactly counter to the position of academics. Retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens is now arguing for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

As he has a perfect right to do. If you believe in the Constitution, you must also believe in the right to amend it.

 

[rpenmanparker]

If I said we already are doing the best we can, could you prove that the laws which allow confiscation without any objective standards would make things better?

I can’t prove anything. I’m just another putz like everyone else on this forum.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I am dismayed at how many gun owners belong to the AARP. My In-Laws that are conservative and claim to support rbka totally blow off the AARP anti-gun position and are proud to belong to it because it helps to protect retirees (or so they think).

And their insurance is cheap. Look, for most people gun ownership is not regarded as a life or death issue no matter which side they are on, pro or anti. And even if pro, they can take the good that AARP or Dick’s Sporting Good’s does for them and cut them slack on the anti-gun stuff. You really should get a handle on how extreme your position is. I’m not saying wrong. I wouldn’t do that. But extreme, yeah.

 

[FROGO207]

If enough people throw enough at the wall in each state some bad legislation is bound to stick and become some new "feel good" gun laws. I have a psychologist acquaintance that thinks owning guns is no good and should be outlawed to "protect the children". Then she will say that if anything goes down she will beat feet to my house where I will be able to "protect her". Get real.