Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Onion’s Tips For Passing Gun Control Legislation [View all]Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)
I think we can do a better job of identifying those people who are potentially dangerous beyond what we do now. There are serous due process and privacy issues, but I think it can be worked out.
That's a big "if." Short of daily, comprehensive psychological evaluations of every person in the country, I don't see how this could be implemented realistically. A great many people who reveal themselves as actually dangerous don't appear potentially dangerous prior to the event. Sure, assholes like Rodgers did a lot of telegraphing before his spree, but I'm not confident that other killers give off warning signals that could be discerned beforehand.
We can improve private sales by requiring a NICS check and opening NICS to the public.
I'm ok with this.
And we can improve access to mental health
That might catch some small fraction of the small fraction of mentally ill people who commit crimes with guns, but it risks trampling on the civil rights of the others. Do we force psychological treatment on people who refuse it? Are we ok further stigmatizing mental illness by effectively assuming that diagnosable/treatable mental illness is a factor in a significant fractino of gun crimes?
and end the drug wars.
We should definitely end the drug wars, but I'm not convinced that this will have a demonstrable effect on non-drug-related gun crime. It might reduce gun sales, which is a good thing, but it's not clear that this will reduce gun crime in turn.
I think antiRKBA folks making the case for registration and making a crime out of not reporting being a victim of a crime will promote massive resistance and fewer restrictions being put into place.
It's a mistake to equate a call for responsible gun legislation with "antiRKBA folks." By your reasoning, nothing can be done at all unless we first and foremost promise not to hurt the NRA's feelings.
So carry on.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
77 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think every fucking asshat open carrying in a fast food joint is potentially dangerous
Skittles
May 2014
#25
Responsible gun owners can do a background check now using an FFL, but they won't.
Hoyt
May 2014
#26
First, your next door neighbor could check to see if you've done something in your past to
Hoyt
May 2014
#64
There is a point of agreement between the NRA and those who want more restrictions
aikoaiko
May 2014
#58
Good advice. Now, let's pass some sensible UK style gun control that will save lives. N.T.
Donald Ian Rankin
May 2014
#59
We need a REAL Opposition Party. One that ISN'T beholden to the 1% that owns Washington DC!!
blkmusclmachine
May 2014
#30
Why s it that one of the only places we find reason & rationality is from our humorists?
baldguy
May 2014
#31
Actually, it's a myth that Dems lost to the gun issues during the Clinton Years....
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2014
#65
he wanted the Dems to shift to the right so OF COURSE he blamed Liberal stands for the loss....
Spitfire of ATJ
May 2014
#69