Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

[JaredJames]

I recommend you look up what a politician is, Bystander.

All of those 'examples' you gave certainly aren't politicians.

 

[AlephZero]

Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you won't get caught in between the cops and the shooter?

You can always invent a different story that would have given a better result with hindsight. Unfortunately, you don't have the hindsight until after the reality is over.

With no disrespect to some other posters on this topic, I find it hard to see how having several members of the public (even of they are war vets) joining in a free-fire shootout is INTRINSICALLY safer than having one nutcase shooting till he/she runs out of bullets.

 

[AlephZero]

The U.S. House of Reprehensibles (ins, outs, wannabes) is a pool of 1500-2000 potential victims --- and at 5 per 100k we expect a murder every 10-15 years. Haven't seen it.

Whatever their political ability or lack of it, it should be obvious that anyone who is a Rep is not living an "average" US lifestyle, or spending most of their time in the situations where the "average" US citizen gets shot.

Therefore, your attempt at statistics is invalid.

 

[Jasongreat]

The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.

Lets say you've got one crazy gunman and two bystanders with guns, bystander #1 whips out a gun and starts firing in response to crazy gunman, bystander #2 sees bystander #1 shooting, assumes he's in cahoots with crazy gunman and shoots bystander #1. Police show up, see bystander #2 shooting and they kill him. Crazy gunman gets away in the confusion.

You would hope so, but that isn't always the case. Cops are human and are fallible, just because they have training doesn't mean that they now infallible. Are cops trained with live rounds firing back at them during target practice? How do we know they won't be afraid when confronted with that? I don't think the fear would go away even if they did. Just google police kill innocent bystander and you will see numerous instances.
Cops do get more training than the average citizen, plus a lot of police are ex military but there are also lots of ex military who are not cops but are just average citizens now. There are also loads of citizens who were raised with guns and have spent their whole life shooting, some cops never even picked up a gun until they went through the academy, and are far less trained than those average citizens. On top of that we have no right to be protected by the police, so citizens should be able to protect themselves.

Are we going to play the what if game now? What if bystander shoots the culprit in the head and no one else dies? What if even though cops show up and shoot the bystander, the culprit is already dead and ten, twenty, thirty other people were saved by his/her actions? What if ...,. We can't live our lives by what ifs, or we would have no liberty whatsoever, imo.

 

[Evo]

Are we going to play the what if game now? What if bystander shoots the culprit in the head and no one else dies? What if even though cops show up and shoot the bystander, the culprit is already dead and ten, twenty, thirty other people were saved by his/her actions? What if ...,. We can't live our lives by what ifs, or we would have no liberty whatsoever, imo.

Well, you asked

Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you won't get caught in between the cops and the shooter?

Given a "what if" situation, I'll take no other shooters, easy answer.

 

[Proton Soup]

what ifs are great fun. but what really happens?

 

[mugaliens]

I've carried a firearm since the mid-1980s. I've never killed anyone. I would not hesitate to kill anyone who attempted to deprive me or my family of life or limb.

Does this surprise anyone here in the U.S.? Do you not understand the basis upon which our country was founded?

We will always defend certain freedoms, by force if necessary. If that's not to your liking, it's time you find another country.

 

[Evo]

Does this surprise anyone here in the U.S.? Do you not understand the basis upon which our country was founded?

Our country was founded over 200 years ago, things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society, that would include the need to bear arms and be prepared to shoot indians and form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.

Time to transition into the 21st century eh?

We will always defend certain freedoms, by force if necessary. If that's not to your liking, it's time you find another country.

One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?

If our country had been formed before the gun and it said we had the right to carry swords only, would you be toting a sword around?

If people want to own guns, fire them, keep them in the house, I'm ok with that. Pretending that they need them to fight invaders in the street that wish to overtake the country, nah.

 

[JaredJames]

form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.

Damn us Brits! The moment you get rid of it (and we get a king) we'll be coming for ya!

 

[Evo]

Damn us Brits! The moment you get rid of it (and we get a king) we'll be coming for ya!

 

[mugaliens]

The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.

Lets say you've got one crazy gunman and two bystanders with guns, bystander #1 whips out a gun and starts firing in response to crazy gunman, bystander #2 sees bystander #1 shooting, assumes he's in cahoots with crazy gunman and shoots bystander #1. Police show up, see bystander #2 shooting and they kill him. Crazy gunman gets away in the confusion.

Aside from the fact that this has never happened...

Seriously, Evo - I open carry 100% of the time. I interact with law enfocemement on a frequent basis. While I agree that the best solution would be a total lack of firearms, that's not going to happen, as criminals are not willing to allow it to happen. You postulated situation is rather far-fetched, to say the least. It's certainly never been a subject of recent American history, so can we please get on with reality verses mere fanciful conjecture?

Thanks.

 

[mugaliens]

...things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society...

Really! Tell that to the widows and children of the tens of thousands of people who are are murdered every year.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime" . I, however, am not, and I will continue to carry a firearm commensurate with our national law.

As for law enforcement, they're only minutes away when seconds count. Think on that for a moment.

 

[czelaya]

Oh yes, I forgot, if a law that forbids gun ownership, then the criminals, because they are criminals will follow the law like law abiding citizens.

In the last thousand years of civilization many things haven't changed. Civilizations are initially free. Governments grow in scope taking the freedoms of its citizens away. At times, governments expand and wage war, and they decree fiat currencies and expand the supply of money to pay for government expenditures until the point of economic collapse... which in the end leaves its citizens poor. Governments impose their ever increasing rule of land by force.

I think the founders realized this and understood this better than most of us could ever contemplate.

 

[turbo]

As for law enforcement, they're only minutes away when seconds count. Think on that for a moment.

Thank you. My wife and I live about 20 minutes from the nearest law-enforcement response in the event of a 911 call, unless some county deputy or state trooper just happens to be driving by when the call comes in. I'm not going to negotiate with some creep on the other side of my front door, or someone who climbs in through a smashed window. That would be a dead person.

I never open-carry handguns, though I can. It's just not in my makeup. My youngest sister has a concealed-carry permit. She has worked at a home/school for troubled youth and moonlights as a bartender. She never knows if she is going to be targeted when she sets out on her pre-dawn walks. I don't think that she is capable of pulling that trigger when there is a human at the other end, but at least she has a deterrent.

 

[Antiphon]

The problem is that the nutters aren't screened and locked away, not that we all have the right to carry machines to protect ourselves from them.

Rep. King should introduce a bill requiring psych evaluations for people who have had minor run-ins with elected officials. Invariably there are signs and smaller encounters that aren't investigated because it's an offense to one or another "civil liberties" group.

We need nets and rubber rooms for the unstable not legal fences that hold back the normal ones of us.

 

[drankin]

The problem is that the nutters aren't screened and locked away, not that we all have the right to carry machines to protect ourselves from them.

Rep. King should introduce a bill requiring psych evaluations for people who have had minor run-ins with elected officials. Invariably there are signs and smaller encounters that aren't investigated because it's an offense to one or another "civil liberties" group.

We need nets and rubber rooms for the unstable not legal fences that hold back the normal ones of us.

I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.

 

[Antiphon]

I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.

I strongly disagree. The point is to bring back the institution of the insane asylum. There was a time when the homeless and obviously disturbed got clinical attention. Now they're left alone to escalate among us.

And you're very wrong that any of us could snap and shoot innocent people. If you really believe that I'm sure a local counselor is available to talk you through it. And screen you for entry into the asylums that no longer exist.

 

[drankin]

I strongly disagree. The point is to bring back the institution of the insane asylum. There was a time when the homeless and obviously disturbed got clinical attention. Now they're left alone to escalate among us.

And you're very wrong that any of us could snap and shoot innocent people. If you really believe that I'm sure a local counselor is available to talk you through it. And screen you for entry into the asylums that no longer exist.

I didn't define snapping as shooting innocent people. Have you ever gotten mad and did something irrational that you regret, or even not regret? This is what I mean. If we screened everyone and segregated everyone that seems strange or has ever flown off the handle, we'd all be in an asylum.

 

[BobG]

The problem is that the nutters aren't screened and locked away, not that we all have the right to carry machines to protect ourselves from them.

Rep. King should introduce a bill requiring psych evaluations for people who have had minor run-ins with elected officials. Invariably there are signs and smaller encounters that aren't investigated because it's an offense to one or another "civil liberties" group.

We need nets and rubber rooms for the unstable not legal fences that hold back the normal ones of us.

I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.

There aren't any requirements for people having minor run-ins to receive a psych eval (nor should there be), but there are laws preventing a person with mental illness serious enough to be committed to a mental institution from purchasing fire arms:

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possesses firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

It's kind of interesting the things that can make one ineligible to purchase a fire arm.

Using mental illness as a sole criteria would be a problem if there were no requirement for psychiatrists to report mental illness that was treated on an out patient basis. And making that a requirement could have a detrimental effect on treating mental illness.

As a comparison, most states forbid an epileptic from getting a drivers license. A few states require doctors to notify the DMV when they diagnose someone as epileptic. That results in some epileptics avoiding treatment or administering their own homestyle treatment since being reported to the DMV would result in an automatic loss of their drivers license. Not that that's a good reason to let a person subject to frequent epileptic siezures drive a car, but it does illustrate the difficulty in enforcing a law like that.

 

[Proton Soup]

oh my, it's almost as if simply passing another law doesn't solve the problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you. My wife and I live about 20 minutes from the nearest law-enforcement response in the event of a 911 call, unless some county deputy or state trooper just happens to be driving by when the call comes in. I'm not going to negotiate with some creep on the other side of my front door, or someone who climbs in through a smashed window. That would be a dead person.

I never open-carry handguns, though I can. It's just not in my makeup. My youngest sister has a concealed-carry permit. She has worked at a home/school for troubled youth and moonlights as a bartender. She never knows if she is going to be targeted when she sets out on her pre-dawn walks. I don't think that she is capable of pulling that trigger when there is a human at the other end, but at least she has a deterrent.

Back when I was working on mobile CAT Scanners, I often had to work at MLK hospital, in Watts, California. This was back before hospitals had their own scanners, so the mobile parked at a loading dock near a rear entrance to the ER. One night I was talking with a cop at the local Winchell's, who told me I was crazy to work at MLK without a gun.

As has been pointed out, when you REALLY need a cop, you rarely have the time to wait for one or even call for help. You are most likely completely on your own. It is up to you to live or die. The first time someone points a gun at you, that becomes abundantly clear in an instant.

As for this law, it makes sense to the extent that potentially dangerous people might be caught or held before they have a chance to do harm. And it does eliminate the need to show intent if a suspicious character is found to be carrying a weapon at a political rally. I would be worried about when and where it applies. I would think it would have be limited to government buildings and formal political events. In those situations, rather than having an armed audience, it makes a lot more sense to have a few designated individuals carrying concealed weapons.

Having the ability to wear an AK-47 at a political rally, as happened a while back, is just nuts. And doing this won't act as a deterrent to mass murder. One reason we know little about mass murderers is that they usually commit suicide during the crime.

 

[mugaliens]

I just don't see this as feasible. The resources required would be a nightmare. The problem is that anyone can snap. We all have the capacity to lose it. That's the human condition. No matter how nuts this guy was/is, he is totally responsible for his actions. It's noones fault but his. What if someone is screened, gets a pass, then does something. Whoever did the screening gets blamed for not catching it. As if it were their fault. This is insanity IMO.

Bang, batta-boom, and bingo.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and I carry a firearm in accordance with our nation's Second Amendment. Hopefully, I'll never have to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I nevertheless reserve my right to do so. Breath easy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that it isn't a big deal to have people walk through a metal detector. Given the proper limits in scope of applicability, I don't see why enforcement would be an issue. Many high schools do it every day. Metal detectors have been common for national political events since at least the 1980s. I know I had to go through one when I saw Reagan, in 1980.

 

[Evo]

Bang, batta-boom, and bingo.

I am a law-abiding citizen, and I carry a firearm in accordance with our nation's Second Amendment. Hopefully, I'll never have to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I nevertheless reserve my right to do so. Breath easy.

But by your own admission

On another note, decades ago I was assessed by a psychologist who used some sort of Q&A test to find me a "danger to society."

We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.

 

[drankin]

I carry a weapon just in case someone close to me snaps before I do. :)

 

[mugaliens]

But by your own admission...

Yes, by my own admission, Evo, here I remain. Do you have a point? I remain healthy, happy, and sane. How are you doing these days?

I carry a weapon just in case someone close to me snaps before I do. :)

Good thinking, Drankin. Carry on. Let's get together for coffee some time. I know of a great place here in town that serves an awesome breakfast!

No one can say they won't snap...

Yes, Evo, many of us can honestly say we won't snap. I'm sorry if you can't trust that, but there it is. I won't snap. If you can't trust this then I suggest you file this with your local law enforcement officer.

...and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

Crap, child. Our government entrusted us with nuclear weapons. We didn't fold then, why in the world would we fold now? (rolls eyes)

 

[CAC1001]

The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.

Cops aren't that well trained. In fact, you'd probably be more comfortable with many a civilian having to shoot than a cop if you saw how bad a shot many police are.

Our country was founded over 200 years ago, things that were necessary then are no longer needed in modern society, that would include the need to bear arms and be prepared to shoot indians and form a militia in case the king's army decides to attack.

Time to transition into the 21st century eh?

What happens if you're in your home and a criminal breaks in intent on killing you and your family?

What happens if a natural disaster occurs and the infrastructure and services break down completely, and you have to deal with roving bands of thieves and criminals?

What happens if you are walking on the street and see a group of thugs coming towards you?

"Modern society" does make modern times any utopia. Violence and crime still occur. Guns are just tools. Violence occurs as a result of other socioeconomic factors separate from the existence of guns. Gangs for example will beat people with clubs, pipes, machetes, thwack a person with a glass bottle, stab with knives, etc...and also shoot with guns.

One if by land, two if by sea. Got your horse ready? Come on mugs, who really thinks they need to carry guns and ammo to fight invaders in the street?

If our country had been formed before the gun and it said we had the right to carry swords only, would you be toting a sword around?

It says we have a right to bear arms though.

If people want to own guns, fire them, keep them in the house, I'm ok with that. Pretending that they need them to fight invaders in the street that wish to overtake the country, nah.

Part of the reason for civilians having the right to bear arms is also to prevent a police state from ever forming as well.

If you think that couldn't happen, what if a major natural disaster occurs that sets the whole country into complete chaos? What if you then end up with a potential would-be dictator trying to take over? And let's say this dictator wannabe has a lot of potential followers and backers, because a lot of people are scared. The people being armed serves as a counter to these types of things.

 

[CAC1001]

But by your own admission We never know, do we? No one can say they won't snap, and if they have a gun, then they're dangerous.

I don't know that I won't snap, but I don't carry weapons.

If someone truly snaps and no one is allowed to carry by law, they can either:

1) Acquire a gun illegally, so that then when they go on a shooting spree, everyone else is un-armed

2) Use something different for a weapon.

 

[drankin]

Good thinking, Drankin. Carry on. Let's get together for coffee some time. I know of a great place here in town that serves an awesome breakfast!

I'm in the Seattle area, what part of the country are you?

 

[mugaliens]

I'm in the Seattle area, what part of the country are you?

Colorado, but my brother lives in Portland. I might visit him sometime, and one of my better friends lives in Seattle, so who knows? But if you're ever in Colorado...

Hey! http://www.rmss.org/"is held here! Come join us. The location is full of cacti, but the summer skies are incredible for viewing the heavens, and I cook one heck of a mean chili. I attended my first RMSS this past summer, and it was quite incredible. I was awed by the scope's, there. Many were larger than 20 inches. Way cool!

I mean, seriously - there were some incredible scopes out there. If you haven't ever been there, done that, this is one of those events.