Gun Control and Regulations

One fact that is often conveniently left out of the gun control debate is that mass shootings don't cause the greatest number of gun-related deaths--suicides do.

Not to mention deaths and injuries caused by accidents, etc.

I wonder what Neil deGrasse Tyson would have to say about that.

Edited by indigoJay on Aug 4th 2019 at 8:49:39 AM

I live in a gun-rich environment and my general opinion is that gun control certainly is a good thing. However, my view of it is that people who support it are kind of ignoring the facts about it. Guns are so ubiquitous that "control" would require national programs of a massive level. Second, that there is plenty of gun control but people don't give a shit to enforce it—in large part because a lot of the people who do it are cops who either don't want to be the ones to try to take them (for obvious reasons) or support the culture themselves.

I'm much more concerned about the ideologies behind a lot of these mass shootings and also the crime that encourages gun violence among the poor.

That's actually something that I agree with gun rights advocates on - if you take away their guns, they'll just find another way to hurt people. So let's regulate the ideology. Take down far-right content, put everyone who tries to incite violence online on a watchlist, and have social media platforms work together to clean them up the way they did with IS propaganda a few years back... oh, who am I kidding.

Again, we can regulate both.

You can but the irony is the gun control is going to be much harder than the nationalism and probably get a bunch of defenders who aren't necessarily in on the latter.

You sure about that? At most, all you can do is deplatform the nationalists. That will possibly lead to less people joining their ranks, but those already among will just act as they've always done, now with a "they're censoring us!!1!!!!11!!!" narrative.

It'll only go so far, is what I'm saying.

It’s far easier to hurt a large number of people using guns than using something else, which is why so many white supremacist terrorists are using them.

Knives don’t cause nearly as much damage so quickly. Bombs require specialized knowledge and planning.

Controlling guns makes it harder for people to carry out these kind of attacks. Both gun control and resistance to the ideology behind these attacks are needed. One isn’t a replacement for the other.

I think you can also investigate these people and arrest them when they start inciting people to violence. Hate speech can and should be a crime.

And we aren't saying otherwise. What we're saying is we need to do both if we want to reduce the number of these murders as much as possible, and in equal measure.

Yes, but guns make it rather easier to do it. That's the whole point of a gun — it's a tool that makes killing easier.

Edited by M84 on Aug 5th 2019 at 9:22:34 PM

True. I'm saying that the ideological component should be taken just as seriously and cracked down upon.

What part of "no one is saying otherwise" do you not understand?

Ah, missed your post. But we've been getting at the exact same point, basically.

What are the thoughts about gun violence restraining orders? A conservative said they might agree with them if they have the following features

1. limit those who have standing to close relatives, housemates, and perhaps bosses/principles. 2. require petitioners to come forward with clear and convincing evidence that the person is a danger 3. allow the person who it is sought against to defend themselves as to why the restraining order should not be issues. 4. In the case of an emergency restraining order, hearings to he held very quickly. 5. lapse after a defined amount of time, unless it can be proved that they continue to be a danger

For me, I'd support it if it didn't become a defacto ban.

You mean "Red Flag" laws. They would have stopped the shooter in Dayton, who had a crystal clear history of violent threats and activities. What happened there is an indictment of society.

As for those points: 1 seems to serve no purpose, its sort of like saying that some victims count more than others; 2 depends on the definition of "clear and convincing". We could most easily use the same standards that are currently applied toward restraining orders. 3 is simply the judicial process— it almost goes without saying (or it should anyhow) 4 same as 3, 5 one of the criteria for getting your guns back is that you go some predetermined period of time without triggering anymore reports of dangerous behavior.

But I dont think red flag laws go far enough. Anyone with a history of increasingly unstable and potentially violent behavior should be placed in mandatory counseling—particularly students at school and employees in a workplace. That wouldnt mean taking their guns away necessarily, but at least someone would be watching them, and trying to get them help. Of course such a thing would be pretty expensive.

Edited by DeMarquis on Aug 5th 2019 at 10:46:01 AM

The current incarnation of strong red flag laws in places like California seems like it has the potential to be challenged as a Fourth Amendment violation.

You have a link for that? Even Trump backs them.

That’s my interpretation. The current expansion to the red flag law in California, AB 61, would allow basically anyone who can articulate that they’ve had “regular contact” with a person to file a restraining order, and given that the hearings for said order are ex parte that would seem to run afoul of not only unreasonable search and seizure but also due process.

I’m also not particularly sold on the stigmatizing of mental illness. The mentally ill are much more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator of one, and only account for a tiny fraction of violence in this country. You’re much more likely to be killed by someone a red flag law probably wouldn’t catch.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 6th 2019 at 7:30:08 AM

Restraining orders have been issued for decades, dude.

Restraining orders rarely involve the police showing up at your house to seize your property. Add to that the fact that states like Connecticut, which have had red flag laws for a while now, have found that the execution of the red flag warrant often involves the person getting arrested, which is the source of at least one court challenge currently on Fourth Amendment grounds.

A quick Google search failed to uncover any serious legal challenges to them, though. I think this is the way we are heading.

Mind you, I dont think we should confiscate anything based on speech alone. A pattern of violent or threatening behavior should be the basis.

The problem here legally isn't nessicaraly the reg flag, it's that only one party has their say (and possibility the evidentiary standard). If you only listen to one person, there is a lot of danger in that.

So question, what should the burden of proof be for something like this?

Where do you get this "one person" thing? It's a court process, each side gets a say, they can bring lawyers, and the ruling is based on the available evidence. As far as I can tell from reading California's version, it follows the same restrictions and procedures as any other search warrant. They can only take the property if there is clear and convincing evidence that the person is intending them to be used in a crime. The court can issue an ex parte warrant (that is, based on one sided evidence) but only if an emergency is suspected and that's only temporary until a hearing can be scheduled.

Frankly, after reading up on this more carefully, I'm not sure that California's Red Flag law is strong enough.

Edited by DeMarquis on Aug 6th 2019 at 11:11:02 AM

The accused does not get a say in the hearings. Same as with conventional restraining orders the hearings are typically always held ex parte.

The standard for issuing the restraining order is also “preponderance of evidence”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

As you can see here, in Indiana around 60-70% of the hearings are held ex parte [1]. The dismissal rate is closely linked to whether the defendant appears in court, if they do it’s highly likely the order will not be filed. That’s the same state where police shot a man dead during a no-knock seizure based on a red flag restraining order as well.

Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 6th 2019 at 9:08:29 AM

The ex parte warrants are only supposed to be issued when its believed that there is an immediate threat to someone's safety. As you yourself note, there are hearings, and when the person named on the warrant shows up, the majority of them are dismissed, and any seized property is returned.

However, I am open to the suggestion that greater protections for the accused might be desirable. Given that we aren't going to abandon the use of restraining orders any time soon, including the red flag variety, what additional protections do you propose?