Gun Legislation

[rstrong]

28K now. I signed the petition, and hope they have an "interesting" convention.

I've signed it too. Gotta do my part for the American electoral process.

[Vrede too]

31K now. It doesn't matter that it's satire and not sponsored by ammosexuals.

Every single argument in it is straight out of the GOP & NRA playbooks and con non-signers are admitting that they are so ovine as to only believe the things the GOP & NRA spew when they're told to believe them.

[Vrede too]

Again.

Two-year-old boy shoots dead mother as she drives on Milwaukee state highway

"shoots mother dead" would have been a little clearer.

[Seth Milner]

I guess the kid thought zombies shouldn't be driving. It's an apocalypse I tell you, an apocalypse!

[Vrede too]

"... he was trying to take a selfie with his gun."

Pay attention, kids - take selfies with a camera, instead.

[GoCubsGo]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/23-reasons-w ... 00248.html
23 Reasons Why We Definitely Don't Need Any Gun Safety Reforms Ever

[O Really]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/23-reasons-w ... 00248.html
23 Reasons Why We Definitely Don't Need Any Gun Safety Reforms Ever

Someone asked, "what law could have prevented those (toddlers) from getting the firearms?" And stated, correctly, that there are already laws most places against letting kids have access to firearms. What would help is some enforcement teeth in the current laws. Stop looking at these incidents as "unfortunate accidents" and treat them like the acts of negligence they are.

[Seth Milner]

Someone asked, "what law could have prevented those (toddlers) from getting the firearms?" And stated, correctly, that there are already laws most places against letting kids have access to firearms. What would help is some enforcement teeth in the current laws. Stop looking at these incidents as "unfortunate accidents" and treat them like the acts of negligence they are.

What's the answer? What sort of "enforcement teeth" do you see would be effective? If there are laws already in place, why do you think they aren't working?

Acts of negligence and unfortunate accidents occur frequently . . . "the best laid plans of mice and men, etc."

[Vrede too]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/23-reasons-w ... 00248.html
23 Reasons Why We Definitely Don't Need Any Gun Safety Reforms Ever

Someone asked, "what law could have prevented those (toddlers) from getting the firearms?" And stated, correctly, that there are already laws most places against letting kids have access to firearms. What would help is some enforcement teeth in the current laws. Stop looking at these incidents as "unfortunate accidents" and treat them like the acts of negligence they are.

Plus, there are technological "smart gun" advancements already invented that could dramatically reduce such "accidents", as well as the use of stolen guns. The NRA freaks out over them because, heaven forbid, the government might someday require that guns be safer. If there was an NRA for cars, seatbelts would still be optional.

[O Really]

Someone asked, "what law could have prevented those (toddlers) from getting the firearms?" And stated, correctly, that there are already laws most places against letting kids have access to firearms. What would help is some enforcement teeth in the current laws. Stop looking at these incidents as "unfortunate accidents" and treat them like the acts of negligence they are.

What's the answer? What sort of "enforcement teeth" do you see would be effective? If there are laws already in place, why do you think they aren't working?

Acts of negligence and unfortunate accidents occur frequently . . . "the best laid plans of mice and men, etc."

Sure but negligence and accidents aren't the same thing. Once the firearm is in the toddler's hand, it's an accident that s/he shot Mom. But before then, the fact that the firearm was (a) loaded (b) round in chamber (c) no safety on and (d) placed where it could be found and removed is totally negligent and changing any one of those intentional acts could have prevented the "accident". But child endangerment from firearms is typically a misdemeanor and rarely even results in loss of firearm rights. Compare to the parent "accidentally" leaving their kid in the car to go shop and - though no actual harm comes to the kid - gets charged and loses (at least temporarily) custody of their kid.

If you knew that your kid finding and firing your gun could result in your permanent loss of right to own a firearm, big fine, possible jail, and possible loss of custody, you might not leave it loaded under your seat.

[Seth Milner]

If you knew that your kid finding and firing your gun could result in your permanent loss of right to own a firearm, big fine, possible jail, and possible loss of custody, you might not leave it loaded under your seat.

That's true, O Really, but stupid will never be fixed. As far as smart guns are concerned, an owner suddenly confronted, can easily botch an arming procedure; empty chambers have to be loaded in an emergency, both which take time; time that will kill you.

If everybody had the same mindset in gun safety, there would be no Democrats or Republicans . . . or the NRA.

[O Really]

One only has to look at those who consistently vote against their own interests to agree with your view that "stupid will never be fixed." But it's not about fixing stupid - it's about preventing the most serious effects of stupid. And about setting a level of criminality or negligence equivalent to other stupid actions. Does it make sense that you can get a higher fine for having an improper gate on your pool - even without anyone being injured - than for leaving your nine where your second-grader can find it and take it to school? I'm just saying that when someone is injured, there is always a cause. Rarely is that cause just a matter of bad luck or "act of god." When the cause is found, it should be addressed at an intensity level fitting the harm. Ridiculously, the "opps" defense works more often than not. And when that doesn't work, there's always "I wuz skeered."

[Seth Milner]

One only has to look at those who consistently vote against their own interests to agree with your view that "stupid will never be fixed." But it's not about fixing stupid - it's about preventing the most serious effects of stupid. And about setting a level of criminality or negligence equivalent to other stupid actions. Does it make sense that you can get a higher fine for having an improper gate on your pool - even without anyone being injured - than for leaving your nine where your second-grader can find it and take it to school? I'm just saying that when someone is injured, there is always a cause. Rarely is that cause just a matter of bad luck or "act of god." When the cause is found, it should be addressed at an intensity level fitting the harm. Ridiculously, the "opps" defense works more often than not. And when that doesn't work, there's always "I wuz skeered."

My neighbor fell off his UL Approved, Union Made and Tested For Conformity extension ladder and broke his leg and his arm; he wasn't arrested, fined, or jailed for negligence . . . what gives?

[O Really]

What gives? You still need to enroll in that refresher course on analogies.

[Seth Milner]

What gives? You still need to enroll in that refresher course on analogies.

Knew you'd love that one.

[O Really]

Domestic violence offenders in Connecticut to lose firearm rights...
http://fox61.com/2016/05/02/bill-requir ... gislature/

[Vrede too]

The bill ... prevents people served with temporary restraining orders from keeping their guns. Alleged abusers now have 24 hours to sell their weapons to a licensed dealer or turn them over to police....

Even better - give the guns to the domestic abuse victims.

[Seth Milner]

That was exactly my thought. This shit's getting scary now.

[JTA]

Domestic violence offenders in Connecticut to lose firearm rights...
http://fox61.com/2016/05/02/bill-requir ... gislature/

I can't help but feel this is feel-good legislation.

Isn't it fairly easy to get a restraining order on somebody: https://www.quora.com/What-proof-do-you ... st-someone

I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong?

Gun advocates had argued it's not fair because a temporary restraining order can be obtained without testimony and because there is an existing law which allows officers to seize guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others.

...

We feel it is important for the public to understand that individuals who may be served with an order of this type do not even have to be charged with any crime, let alone convicted of wrong-doing.

I mean, it's not unheard of for batshit crazy women concocting false domestic violence stories out of spite. False rape accusations are a thing, too.

[Vrede too]

... The bill ... prevents people served with temporary restraining orders from keeping their guns. Alleged abusers now have 24 hours to sell their weapons to a licensed dealer or turn them over to police.

The new legislation requires a hearing on a full restraining order within seven days. If a permanent order is not granted, gun owners get their firearms back.

"We have a moral obligation to work to prevent needless tragedy and to make this the law," Malloy said in his statement. "Women in abusive relationships are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm. Between 2000 through 2012, Connecticut averaged 14 intimate partner homicides per year, and firearms were the most commonly used weapons. When an instance of domestic violence rises to the point that a temporary restraining order is needed, we must do everything we can to prevent tragedy."

House Bill 5054, "An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence," changes current law, which states a domestic violence victim must apply for a temporary restraining order and then wait two weeks for a judge to grant a permanent order before an abuser's guns are confiscated....

It's a judgement call. Which harms society more, a falsely accused man being gunless for 6 days or a dead woman?