Las Vegas...

Senan wrote: Just as I suspected, MadHatter, as a more enthusiastic supporter of gun owner's rights, you have better ideas than I do about regulating them. I really like the ideas of taxes going toward victims funds and also gun safety education for younger people in schools.

Investigating denied gun purchases should be required. It is obviously a red flag, even if it is by mistake. Let's get it investigated and either cleared up, or explained.

I understand the risk of failure when it comes to technological solutions, so I would say to keep testing new ideas and see if we can find one that is actually as reliable as the weapon itself would usually be. It may not exist, but at least it could prevent some accidents. I do have trigger locks on the guns I only use for recreation. I keep the shotgun ready to fire because it is an emergency self defense weapon, so I get it.

I also understand the argument about the amount of ammunition sold. I know there is a need to make it available in retail stores, but maybe training courses and recreational use at ranges could require the ammo be purchased on site? You could buy as much as you need at the range, but then we could restrict the amount available for purchase at retailers? I'm sure there would be ways around this too, like going to multiple retailers in one trip, but I'm tossing out ideas. This just got me thinking of the way pharmacies work. They are located in retail stores, but still require a prescription to get the actual drugs. Maybe there's an idea buried somewhere in there.

Anyway, thank you for tossing out some good ideas and getting me thinking a different way about it.

Still though...what of these ideas are preventative?

The gun safety education in school is about the only one even remotely preventative...but that would only theoretically curb the instance of "accidental" discharge related incidents, and the like...and perhaps create a general attitude against the affection for gun ownership in the future...

Selling ammo like a pharmacist is an interesting idea though...worth exploring even...but then where/what do you do to get a prescription? And who determines what a reasonable amount to purchase within what sort of time frame is suitable or not? Still, worth discussing this one.

The rest of the issue is predominately challenged by our inability to identify violent actors before they become so. Just as we cannot always identify drunk drivers before they do so.

Nearly all of our actual laws are based upon "after" the incident remedies. Short of achieving the technology to put law enforcement on the offensive (as in the "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise...?)...law enforcement can almost never be expected to act preemptively. Even if I identify someone with an arsenal and report that they have made suggestions of intent, law enforcement can "investigate", but without any actual evidence of a crime, there is little they could do until that person pulls the trigger. That just isn't the nature of how our legal system works, all "innocent until proven guilty" and what not, and the necessity of an actual crime being committed before one can even be reasonably detained.

*************

Much of the question, to me, has to do with our cultural or social understanding of the issue. We live in an environment today where there is no consensus on the issue at all...and as this thread exhibits, the arguments on both sides can be presented as factually based and valid, and it is rather likely that those on one side of the issue tend to promulgate their views on it amongst them and theirs, while those on the other side do the same with them and theirs.

To change how we as a society handle any of these issues we have to change from within first, whether we are talking about gun violence, drunk driving, or racism.

There has to be an overwhelming social attitude to discourage such things before we can expect future generations to receive the conditioning and mindset necessary to see this stuff stop.

Face it, there is nothing which could happen today or tomorrow which would immediately end the risk of gun violence, or drunk driving, or whatever.

But as a whole unit, we can instill within our children a sense of responsibility and right actions, to hopefully allow them to create an environment for their future where such things do not happen.

My opinion, attitude, or general view towards MANY things has undergone relatively incredible changes since I came here to this Temple...not all intentional or anything, and I am not sure how any of that will influence my offspring or not...but I readily expect my current outlook on many things to be more of a positive influence on my daughter than not...and with any luck she will carry that attitude forward to continue to positively influence others.

I just do not see any rule, policy, regulation, law, or constitutional change which would actually have an effect in the war on gun violence.

The war on drugs (if we consider it in the 90s sense) has been largely won through proper parenting and education, not through mandatory sentencing or other new laws...it is not over, but I would venture to say that we are quite a bit better in that regard today than we were 25 years ago.

Trisskar,
First, it's clear to me now my method of communication here has been combative and not constructive, so I'm trying something different now. You asked for ideas, and I did my best to provide some that could be applied to the topic we've been discussing here. I'm not saying they are great, or even good. Maybe some clarification will help.

I don't think I was making my self clear in my earlier response to you. I don't think it is feasible to question the intention of ANY purchase, including guns, because people don't have to be truthful. I can buy a gallon of gas and say it's for my lawn mower, and then use it to burn down the neighbor's house. I can by fertilizer for my "farm" and make a bomb out of it. What I mean to say, is that I can question the intention of anyone buying anything, not just gun purchases. The reason I would more likely question the intention of a gun purchase is that guns are a pretty specific tool with a limited amount of legitimate (read that as "legal") uses. Its the same reason fertilizer purchases are now screened. Simply asking someone why they are interested in buying a .22 rifle doesn't seem unreasonable considering the purchaser could just lie anyway, but it might raise some flags if a mentally ill person isn't behaving normally when asked. We ask bartenders not to serve people who are visibly drunk. Couldn't we train gun sellers to ask a few questions in order to possibly recognize some common warning signs? I don't know what those signs or questions might be, but it is worth at least discussing.

Not to be contentious, but for the simple matter of clarification, federal officers have followed the paper trails on the weapons used and discovered in the Las Vegas shooting investigation and they have confirmed that they were purchased legally in Nevada, Utah, Texas and California. He passed background checks for all of them. They can't track the bump stocks easily because they don't carry serial numbers. Nobody ever questioned his intention, and I'm not saying they had any reason to since his behavior at each individual purchase sight may have seemed normal, but one would think that many gun legal gun purchases and background checks in a short period of time would raise an alarm with somebody.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/07/where-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-bought-his-guns-it-was-all-legal/

Asking why people would use guns in an irresponsible or illegal way after the fact doesn't help anything. You'll always get the same answers. "He was crazy. He must of been because only a crazy person would do that," or "it's terrorists who hate America". These are often true, but saying that now didn't stop him from getting away with it. I'm looking for ways to recognize the "crazy" or "terrorist" flags before a shooting so maybe it can be prevented. Even if this guy didn't commit any crime, I still believe owning fifty guns (technically, 47) is a flag that should be at least looked into. Questioning the intention in this case doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, and it may have warned law enforcement to look at his travel history. They may have seen a pattern of visiting hotels near major outdoor festivals across the country. Or maybe they would've noticed him buying guns in multiple states in a very short period of time. Maybe someone would have considered this behavior unusual and looked into it more? Who knows? It was small patterns of recognizable behavior like this that got the UNAbomber caught, so there is precedent for it.

To give an example not related to guns, my right to privacy is violated every time I receive cancer treatments. I get ID'd twice (license and then medical bracelet) and have to recite my full name and birth date out loud every time I'm administered a chemo drug so that they don't accidentally give me the wrong drug or dose. It violates my privacy, but it also prevents accidents and overdoses. It is an inconvenience that I accept in order to receive the treatment I want, and it prevents others from abusing or misusing powerful drugs. Sometimes getting what we want comes with reasonable trade offs.

I see why you think I'm fixated on the material object, but the object is what turns intention into action. I can intend to cut down a tree, but I need a saw or an ax to do it. I can also murder a person with an ax. The object becomes part of executing the intention, whether that intention is good or bad. Any person can intend to murder others, but the gun was the tool used here, and sadly, they are used quite often. So, naturally, people will start to question the intention of owning way more guns than the average responsible gun owner would typically have.

I'm not fixated on the guns. I'm fixated on how to stop people from using them to do really stupid and heinous acts of violence. Mental illness is a reason people might do this. Political or religious agendas could play a role. PTSD or other environmental factors might set someone off. Stephen Paddock was also a compulsive gambler who would spend tens of thousands of dollars in one night. Maybe the only thrill he could find in life after that was murdering a bunch of people? I am well aware that there are hundreds of possible reasons for people to commit crimes, but that doesn't mean I also shouldn't look at gun related solutions for crimes committed using guns. It is just one piece of the overall prevention puzzle. Putting serial numbers on bump stocks or making them illegal won't stop crazy people from using them, but it might make it harder or create a situation where they are discovered during the purchase of illegal hardware before a crime is committed. We should at least consider all options and then weight them against individual liberties.

None of the ideas I presented had anything to do with confiscating, banning, or regulating the weapon you currently have in your house. I'm trying to find ways to recognize patterns of behavior that mass shooters share, that responsible gun owners don't. That way we can spot them more easily and get them the help they need before they kill innocent people. I know a lot of these ideas are not feasible or won't be very effective, but we have to start somewhere. Even if us liberals managed to get every currently proposed gun control bill through Congress, you would still have your guns. You would still pass background checks. You would still be considered a responsible gun owner. People who aren't might get caught, and illegal hardware might be harder to get. Might. This is still a more reasonable option to me than doing nothing and then apologizing to victims after every tragedy.

I'm open to discuss these other topics you mention, but I haven't seen them come up in this thread except that this guy was "crazy" or it was a conspiracy involving more than one person. There still isn't evidence that I have seen of either of those things. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but other than mental illness, what other issue would there be to explain his use of multiple high powered and modified weapons to kill a bunch of people? I have to go with what actually happened, not hypothetical "what ifs", and sadly guns were part of what actually happened.

Sam,
I see your point about "innocent until proven guilty" and you are right. This puts law enforcement in the position of waiting for the crime to occur before they can react. This allows determined criminals to get away with things even when they are suspected beforehand, but that is the price of a personal liberty and protection from government abuse that must be maintained in a free society. Comparing it to drunk driving is interesting as well. We create these unintended consequences when we error on the side of freedom (which I still believe we should), and sometimes once the cat is out of the bag, all we can do is try to mitigate the damage. It can never be prevented all together.

I agree that education may be the only way to turn the tide of current social and legal issues. You mentioned the war on drugs, and I think it is interesting to see how the perception of marijuana use has changed after the message changed from "gateway drug" to "medicinal". New information has changed how this and the next generation views marijuana. While the U.S. is certainly a special case when it comes to gun ownership, personal liberties, the interaction of the two, and the consequences, I still believe we can learn a lot from other nations about how they educate their citizens about guns. We would even learn from the policies we totally disagree with that would never work here. The more information, the better.

Senan wrote: Sam,
I see your point about "innocent until proven guilty" and you are right. This puts law enforcement in the position of waiting for the crime to occur before they can react. This allows determined criminals to get away with things even when they are suspected beforehand, but that is the price of a personal liberty and protection from government abuse that must be maintained in a free society. Comparing it to drunk driving is interesting as well. We create these unintended consequences when we error on the side of freedom (which I still believe we should), and sometimes once the cat is out of the bag, all we can do is try to mitigate the damage. It can never be prevented all together.

I agree that education may be the only way to turn the tide of current social and legal issues. You mentioned the war on drugs, and I think it is interesting to see how the perception of marijuana use has changed after the message changed from "gateway drug" to "medicinal". New information has changed how this and the next generation views marijuana. While the U.S. is certainly a special case when it comes to gun ownership, personal liberties, the interaction of the two, and the consequences, I still believe we can learn a lot from other nations about how they educate their citizens about guns. We would even learn from the policies we totally disagree with that would never work here. The more information, the better.

In your response to Trisskar a moment ago you hit on the "patterns of behavior" concept again. Which I understand, and agree, that there should be certain things we can notice ahead of time that suggest something is off. It is still a touchy area in how our laws work that without convincing evidence or reasonable doubt, or any other sort of actual proof, there is little that could be done ahead of time.

Without getting into the specifics of medical marijuana...there may be something to that same general approach...where we move the focus away from "gateway drugs" or "self-defense guns" to a "medical" drug or a "____ gun"?

Redefine what it is the 2A mindset towards the right to bear arms actually entails...? Is it for defense...or something else?

Senan you said your right to privacy is violated at the hospital. Well that would imply you are forced to be there. You go willingly and they have a procedure in place to ensure that your safety is ensured while you are there. Not exactly a violation of anything if you willingly go and can leave at any time.
But lets roll with your example when I want to get a gun I have to fill out a form with all my personal information, present my id, in some states my pistol permit as well, and then I have a background check run on me. Thanks to firearms purchases, various permits and security clearances I have had a background check run on me at least once every two years, often more, for the last 12 years of my life. How much more vetting can you want for a gun owner?

To be fair though...privacy is not an actual right, but rather more of a social expectation. Something we hope would be respected in most of our interactions, whether public or private in nature.

Whether we are asked to divulge personal information at a hospital, gun store/range, the library, or a bar, is not at all an exercise to question the notion of our reasonable expectation of privacy. Interactions in those areas, and countless others throughout our standard daily existence, are choices we make and thus even had an exclusive inalienable "right to privacy" been included in the constitution, offering personal information in those scenarios would still not violate that right, were it one.

Offering your information to someone about to administer such medical treatment is a reasonable expectation, lest they accidentally give you someone else's dose, or give someone else who has no reason to receive it at all, your dose.

Offering your information to purchase a firearm at a store or loan a firearm at a range, are reasonable expectations, not just for the obvious safety considerations (and relevant laws), but for simple business practices when transacting in such large dollar amounts. Heck, I went to a range recently to fire a handgun I was considering buying, and asked to loan it since they have it as one of their loaners. They have a specific policy against allowing unaccompanied first-time visitors from borrowing guns at their range, for safety reasons (purportedly for my safety, not theirs). I produced more information than generally requested, including that of my military background, my current position with my present employer (which is an easily recognizable and respected institution), and offered the phone number to my primary care physician with the VA, should the need to confirm my mental stability allow them to overcome the hesitancy in their policy. The range manager just made me promise to use it responsibly. The trade seemed worth it to me, so I did. No harm done, no privacy violated, but they had a reasonable expectation to enforce that policy should that have chosen to do so, and I get it, so I was not prepared to push it further anyway.

We offer our personal information in exchange for a driver's license, a library card, to register to vote, to create an Amazon account, or to have a beer at Applebee's. All have reasonable expectations of needing that information, and we willingly engage in those interactions, thus deciding that offering our "private" information to the other is worth the expected return to us.

Were a government official to appear at my door and demand I divulge such information so he could issue me a library card I did not request, nor need, then I may have a more valid argument against him seeking that information, and I could reasonably refuse to offer it. Though, I imagine he would probably already have it anyhow, so perhaps a somewhat good example with glaring holes in how it plays out...but you get my point.

So, let us set aside the "privacy" issue, since it really just does not exist, nor does it have an impact on the questions at hand.

SamThift wrote: To be fair though...privacy is not an actual right, but rather more of a social expectation. Something we hope would be respected in most of our interactions, whether public or private in nature.

Actually many courts have held this to be a right inferred from the 1st,3rd, 4th amendment, 5th, and 9th amendments. Further demanding you show ID to exercise a Constitutional right has been argued against for voter ID laws and thus ought to be applicable when discussing this route as well.

MadHatter wrote:

SamThift wrote: To be fair though...privacy is not an actual right, but rather more of a social expectation. Something we hope would be respected in most of our interactions, whether public or private in nature.

Actually many courts have held this to be a right inferred from the 1st,3rd, 4th amendment, 5th, and 9th amendments. Further demanding you show ID to exercise a Constitutional right has been argued against for voter ID laws and thus ought to be applicable when discussing this route as well.

Yet...in the SCOTUS cases where it was deemed an "inferred" right...the question of one's privacy was generally handled in very niche questions of the whole, and should not be taken to blanket what we may feel constitutes a "right to privacy", but rather protection against other injustices found within our constitution and law, where privacy is more of a secondary or tertiary issue at best, and less of an actual definitively protected right.

In the Voter ID law issue...the prevailing argument to defeat that requirement could thusly be applied to defeat any proposed requirements that we show an ID to a hospital or gun dealer then...could it not? If I do not need to show an ID to vote, which is a constitutionally provided right, then why would I be compelled to do so to purchase a gun, which is a constitutionally provided right? See where this can get hairy quickly?

So my primary assertion is that classifying any of this as a "privacy" issue, is very thin ice to be treading upon, and probably shouldn't be argued as a foundational consideration...since it could reasonably be argued both ways.

Though, I do digress...as I do not think Senan was originally intending to make a "privacy" argument as the basis for how we handle this specific issue...

So I will let that question rest. Just wanted to point out where I saw it insufficient.

I would like to see what others think of the "controlled substance" approach offered with regard to pharmaceutical styled handling of ammunition.

Or how responsibility or education could change the social opinion of guns and their relation to violence.

Potentially including a "re-framing" of what it is the 2A sought to provide Americans under that right? If we moved away from the defense argument to a different construct (as Senan suggests happened with the "gateway drug" to the "medical" application of marijuana), could that shift the public opinion of why that concept should remain in tact, but also shift our own understanding of what we own under that right, and why?

SamThift wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

SamThift wrote: To be fair though...privacy is not an actual right, but rather more of a social expectation. Something we hope would be respected in most of our interactions, whether public or private in nature.

Actually many courts have held this to be a right inferred from the 1st,3rd, 4th amendment, 5th, and 9th amendments. Further demanding you show ID to exercise a Constitutional right has been argued against for voter ID laws and thus ought to be applicable when discussing this route as well.

Yet...in the SCOTUS cases where it was deemed an "inferred" right...the question of one's privacy was generally handled in very niche questions of the whole, and should not be taken to blanket what we may feel constitutes a "right to privacy", but rather protection against other injustices found within our constitution and law, where privacy is more of a secondary or tertiary issue at best, and less of an actual definitively protected right.

In the Voter ID law issue...the prevailing argument to defeat that requirement could thusly be applied to defeat any proposed requirements that we show an ID to a hospital or gun dealer then...could it not? If I do not need to show an ID to vote, which is a constitutionally provided right, then why would I be compelled to do so to purchase a gun, which is a constitutionally provided right? See where this can get hairy quickly?

So my primary assertion is that classifying any of this as a "privacy" issue, is very thin ice to be treading upon, and probably shouldn't be argued as a foundational consideration...since it could reasonably be argued both ways.

The fact is that the 9th amendment states that unless the States or Federal government is given the right to invade our privacy then that privacy is retained by us and its further clarified by the other mentioned amendments. Privacy is indeed a right we have. Further I do not think we should need to have so many barriers between us and constitutional rights. Never mind so many costly ones that deny our right for a period of time while we wait.