Attainable gun control legislation that will actually save lives.
Posted Mar 28, 2021, 1:11 AM UTC
1948
The problem with target domestic violence histories is the broad range under which domestic incidents are categorized.
I know an individual who owns firearms but was unable to obtain a CCW because of a domestic incident on his record. Years ago his wife, at the time, called the police because they had had a verbal argument (no physical contact), the police responded and advised him to spend the night somewhere else and come back the next day. There were no other issues, they divorced peacefully, but the police logged the incident under a category of domestic which prohibits him from obtaining a CCW.
What would do better for reducing gun violence:
- Address socioeconomic issues
- Universal background checks
- Tax deductible training
- Establishing a nationally standardized firearms training curriculum and adjusting all self defense laws throughout the country for consistency.
- Allow non-violent felons to have their 2A Rights reinstated as a reward for staying out of trouble.
- Increase legal protections for people who voluntarily seek out therapy for their issues.
6
I am curious, what issue are you looking to correct with required training? The issue with violence with guns has nothing to do with unsafely using them, people are intentionally shooting themselves or others. Training does not help with that.
I don't think non-violent felons should have their gun rights removed in the first place. I think SCOTUS will be hearing a case about that this session.
2
With more people going to training it could help educate people on identifying risky individuals or situations, provided if such is part of a given curriculum.
Additionally, it could deter violent crime if the majority of gun owners are commonly known to be trained.
1
We are going to teach people that are willing to commit murder or suicide how to identify risky situations? You lost me there.
I think I am completely missing the point of your second sentence. Are you saying if criminals know non-criminals are more likely to be trained they will be less likely to shot people?
0
As far as training goes I meant it as part of being a deterrent.
It is widely known that the majority are allowed to own guns, but not all of them are often trained to use it effectively and assailants sometimes count on that.
I worked in private security for many years and while I won’t hype up the job I will say that I’ve seen enough to believe that vigilant human security is the most effective deterrent to criminal activity.
I’ve even heard that hanging a US flag in front of your home reduces the likelihood of being burglarized because of the stereotype being communicated.
Who is most likely to be attacked? An armed guard who’s paying attention to their surroundings or the one watching tv?
1
The one part I slightly disagree with him on (and it might not actually be a disagreement) is that a record should be expunged after a certain time or after some specific chain of events occur (subsequent clean record for a period of time, counseling etc).
2
True.
For a country that prides itself on individual liberty and opportunity we certainly like to make sure that people who make mistakes are never allowed to move on and either face long-term impoverishment or a lifetime of public humiliation.
5
Universal background checks are bullshit. It’s being paraded as though background checks don’t already exist. Under the UBC, if you loan your gun to a friend to take to the range, he has to undergo a background check, which of course costs money. When it’s time to return the gun, you need another background check which once again costs money.
That background check is only good for that gun. Every transfer has to be locked to a specific weapon. How do you do that? You build a registry so that the government knows where all the guns are. Nothing could possibly go wrong here, right?
1†
I think the Swiss have a system that would address it. There you apply for your background check and you receive a document in the mail a couple days later that is good for a period of time (three months compared to the US's 1). You just present it when you make a purchase.
There could easily be something where you just pay $20 and you get unlimited background checks for a year. Then your buddy just scans your name through and app if there is ever a problem and out comes your (hopefully) clean record.
4
Background checks range from $35-50 each in these parts. Not sure where you’re from but $20 is a fantasy here. Why would any commercial company drop their price?
Your buddy cannot just scan your name through. You both have to be present. One as the tranferer, the other as a transferee. This system is already in place. It’s called NICS. The government is trying to push UBC in order to build a registry. There is only one thing that comes after a registry is built.
They’re claiming that NICS isn’t enough and 3-day waits are too short. Problem is, when the government fails to do their part, it doesn’t matter if it’s 3 days or 14. They still fail. The premise of the expanded wait time in this bill points to the Charleston shooter. Problem was, he waited months after buying his guns before launching his attack. No waiting period extension (which can be more than 30 days) would’ve helped. The government didn’t do their job. That’s no excuse to deny people a lawful right.
Last, laws like these only punish the poor. Dropping as much as $100 to transfer a gun to and from someone is a non starter. Fines for violations? Sure, the wealthy can handle it. The poorer, not so much.
When this is put in place, either through EO or Congress, it will be immediately challenged. The 9th ckt court will uphold it, then the Supreme Court will likely overturn it, like they do to 80% of all the crap the 9th upholds.
No, I’m just not seeing this as a good thing
Edit: I agree with every other proposal you listed. I think they’d go a long way to help
2
$20 comes from the Swiss, they charge 20 Fr. for a background check which is 21.29 USD ($20 is a nice round figure). There the police do the work not the gun shop, the buyer just presents their documentation.
Yes the government does need to do better; I'm all for that. The system needs to work faster with fewer errors, reporting from other jurisdictions needs to be improved (like what failed in Boulder).
If we want to have UBC without a gov't registry the solution is simple, take it out of the government's hands. The government can charter private corporations, think like the Federal Reserve or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Just put in the charter that the government can only get a single citizen's records with a court order. Want even more protection then have the board of directions be empowered to deny a court order that is deemed malicious and make the board of directors appointed by the vote of the citizens. We could even have a figurative big red button in their charter that allows them to destroy all the records should something happen, plus if its gotten to that you already have your warning to go to ground.
3
Love this dude
3
[deleted]
2
5
I was going to post something similar. His free time is spent working in and supporting women's shelters.
3
Wtf are you talking about? When did he say anything about rape?
2
Rape is/can be domestic violence.
3
Ok: once again, when did tge guy in the video directly say anything about rape?
2
No but I am assuming that that is the connection that the original commenter made.
2
[deleted]
1
That doesn’t answer the question
2
Isn't this the same guy who (and I absolutely could be wrong) who was wrapped up in human trafficking? Not trying to derail, but if it is then I have some reservations on his good intent/credibility.
Again, I am genuinely asking, and I have had a couple so tell me if I'm wrong. If I am off base in bringing it up I'm happy to pipe down.
2†
I checked it out but couldn’t find anything conclusive. There was a man by the name of Justin King in Florida who was convicted of human trafficking for hotel workers. A reddit dicussion here suggests that it is the same person, but the video reference is broken. Without conclusive evidence, I can’t tell whether this is a rumor or it‘s the same guy. Somebody else might have more info. he’s certainly a bit odd though.
4
Super appreciated! I wasn't entirely sure eit was him, just some dim recollection of a conversation with a buddy from a long while ago.
2
To clarify, I don’t know one way or the other. I’m hoping someone with the full story picks this up and elaborates.
5
There's a lot of info out there, including interviews with him. From what I understand, the human trafficking he was involved in was for the sole purpose of rescuing refugees from their situations in violent countries, and most were women.
2
He also only got a slap on the wrist for it and the records were sealed. So something happened in regards to it.
Given that he is a proponent of open borders its possible he got roped in to something that wasn't what he thought it was. He's never said what went down and its likely part of why those records were sealed.
1
He knew exactly what he was doing in rescuing refugees, and he did 3 years in federal prison, not exactly a slap on the wrist. There's plenty of info out there if you search for Justin King and human trafficking, including interviews with him about the subject.
3
That's really interesting, I had no idea. Thank you for the additional info!
2
[deleted]
1
His argument boils down to circumventing due process to remove a civil liberty. I can't imagine many gun owners who would support that.
2
While it's a good effort on a law, I think many people will still not support it. How about this instead: Put a $3-4k bounty to tips leading to confiscation of illegally owned guns. People know their friend, boyfriend, brother, etc have illegal guns. They will probably get mad at them at some point, mad enough to turn them in for cash. This will slowly but regularly decrease the pool of illegally owned guns, which are what are used in most crimes. And the criminals will eventually stop letting others know they own them, and be more reluctant to bring them into view and use them. Zero legal gun owners will be impacted, as legal ability to own a gun will be determined before the cops are sent.
2
18 U.S.C 922 is a federal law that prohibits anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a gun. I often disagree with him, but he usually doesn't get facts wrong.
If he is suggesting we should start prohibiting people that are thought to have committed a crime but have not been convicted of the crime by a jury of their peers....well, no. I don't support that.
What he's talking about is that charges frequently get bumped to something else for a certain segment of the population and that the intimate partner definition of the Lautenberg Amendment only covers a spouse, the other parent of your child, or someone who cohabitates with you. If your abuser isn't married to you lives somewhere else and you don't have kids together 18 U.S.C 922 doesn't apply.
Right. So we want to remove civil liberties based on an accusation and not based on a conviction by a jury of peers. Well yes, it only covers domestic violence. If we want to argue the state should not reduce domestic violence charges that is cool with me. I will never be cool with rights being removed for accusations that were not proven in a court.
"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."
Given the stances Beau has given in his other videos he is not talking about any sort of punishment without due process.
Maybe you or Beau can explain that to me. What is it exactly he is suggesting? It sounded like he wanted people that have domestic violence backgrounds to be prohibited, which they are. Beyond that, I understand we are concerned charges are sometimes reduced, which is true. We cannot base penalties on charges which did not lead to a conviction. I don't even know what to say about the animal abuse thing, I have not ever seen that tied to gun violence.
I don't think you should give up your rights just by dating someone. If you are living separately, then you should have all the rights as anybody else.
You do have all the same rights, you'll just be charged the same if you beat up your girlfriend as someone who lives with their girlfriend.
If you beat up a random stranger at the grocery store, vs beating up your girlfriend you don't live with, then those are treated differently, which is what I was objecting to.