Follow TV Tropes
Schumer blasts 'red flag' gun legislation as 'ineffective cop out'
"The notion that passing a tepid version of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) billóaloneóis even close to getting the job done in addressing rampant gun violence in the U.S. is wrong and would be an ineffective cop out," Schumer said in a statement.
He added that Democrats "are not going to settle for half-measures so Republicans can feel better and try to push the issue of gun violence off to the side."
Schumer's comments come as several Republican senators have floated passing legislation to provide incentives for states to pass red flag laws in response to last weekend's mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas.
Red flag laws, as discussed by Republicans, would let family members petition for court orders to prevent dangerous individuals from being able to buy a gun. It would also let family members petition for court orders to have law enforcement temporarily remove a firearm.
I'm rather annoyed at this. Red Flag laws are something that gun owners are willing to put out there and change about gun laws. Someone who is as extreme as I am is even willing to put this out there and see if we can trust and work together to solve an issue like this that we both want solutions to. We need to work together on things we both agree on so that we can work together on things that we don't agree on as much. Schumer is torpedoing any future gun control legislation by not being willing to work with what we are willing to give and both agree on.
Red flag laws might be the first significant piece of gun control legislation that pro gun people can be said to be for. Schumer is wrong that it wouldn't stop anything, I feel we have good reason to think it might have stopped the Dayton shooter. Schumer is doing the same bad behavior that Mc Connell has been rightly blasted for.
It sounds like he's saying that Red Flag laws alone are not enough, not that he's going to stop them from being passed.
Apparently the .223 AR used in the Dayton shooting was legally classified as a pistol, and had the lower receiver registered as such.
EDIT: Went through the article again and it looks like the the distinguishing element was one little thing called a pistol brace.◊ It was originally designed to help disabled shooters stabilise their longarm by strapping it over their arm.◊ Because the US NFA defines a "rifle" as a shoulder-fired firearm with a minimum barrel length of 16 inches, a short-barrelled AR fitted with a pistol brace (which honestly looks like it can be used as as a stock just fine) can be legally classified as a pistol. Quoth the ATF:
Not sure whether it was easier to legally obtain a rifle or a pistol in the shooter's locality, but it looks like a pretty major wrinkle in the code.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Aug 9th 2019 at 2:25:05 AM
Thatís been a thing for a while. The point isnít to bypass registration requirements (as long guns are actually easier to get than pistols most places) but to bypass length requirements. If a rifle has a barrel shorter than 16 inches you have to pay the ATF $200 and go through an additional registration process, while a pistol has no such barrel length requirements.
The firearm industry will wiggle around pretty much any by-feature regulation you try to put on it, as we can see here and with things like ban-compliant rifles in CA and NY. Regulation needs to be on the basic act of owning a gun rather than specific types and features.
See, its this kind of loopholism and over-specified laws that makes a system of gun ownership licencing necessary.
Even worse, SBR regulations seem to be a solution in search of a problem. It was assumed that their short barrels would let criminals tuck them under their clothes, but thatís simply not something anyone does. If you want to conceal a weapon you just get a handgun.
Current gun control laws are written like an arms control treaty without the verification.
I'm not sure if this is technically allowed but
Some guy showed up to a Wal-Mart decked out in body armor, with at least 2 guns and a large sum of ammunition. He was immediately arrested.
I think he's one of those clowns that considers themselves a deputy police officer and walks around armed to the teeth to both protest people being uncomfortable and like dissuade actual criminals from attacking. No one ever really talks about those people in a negative light and this is the first time I can recall one of them being arrested. Any hot takes on this?
The topic changed while I was writing this.
>Any amount of deaths is unacceptable. Any "solution" to mass shootings that leaves even a single person dead is not as good as a true solution to mass shootings that stops them entirely.
>The "solution" of "more guns might reduce the number of casualties" is ethically bankrupt because it is both insufficient in stopping shootings entirely and it directly opposes the only actual solution for stopping mass shootings completely.
I think there are two ways to look at it, one from a larger perspective and one from a closer. I would agree that from a larger perspective we need to find a solution that does stop them entirely while maintaining a balance with rights. I'm not convinced it's realistic that we stop mass shootings (realistic in the sense that while getting rid of all of the guns in America would work, if only because there weren't any guns to use, it's not happening in either of our lifetimes.) While I might disagree with the specific suggestions for various reasons, it is certainly a laudable goal. So in a sense, I agree with you.
However, there is also the other smaller perspective. The perspective of "A mass shooting is happening whether you want it to or not. How do we minimize the casualties?" Given that many shooters stop when they are shot or the target tends to be harder then they thought it was going to be, hardening the potential targets makes sense.
> the unsubstantiated claim that civilian interference lowers casualties. Got any numbers, any statistics, any proof to that claim?
Hero in 2007 Colorado church shooting provides insight on recent mass shootings across the US
Outside, a 24-year-old was heavily armed and began shooting, setting his sights on the inside of the building.
Itís been nearly 11 years since the gunman killed two and injured three others in a mass shooting that could have been much worse.
"I saw a sad, confused individual who forced me to end his life," said Jeanne Assam during an interview with Contact 7 Chief Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski.
Assam, speaking out now in the wake of several recent mass shootings across the country, offered details about what happened back in 2007 and her perspective on what has happened since.
"I just had no fear, I was very comfortable," Assam said. "It was a big responsibility I was feeling and I canít let these people down. Iíve got to kill this guy before he kills me and kills all these people."
Time to Remember the Forgotten Jihadist Beheader in Oklahoma Now Cleared for Execution
These are just three that happened to be handy of the over half a million times that guns get used defensively in a year.
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
Something from today's developing "What the Fuck Just Happened Today" news feed:
A fourth member of the NRA board resigned before the end of her three-year term. Julie Golob is the fourth NRA board member to resign in the last two weeks in a sign of further upheaval within the gun rights organization. Golob did not state a reason for her resignation in a note posted on her website. "I am proud to have had the opportunity to represent the members of the NRA but I can no longer commit to fulfilling the duties of a director," Golob wrote. She promised to continue to support the NRA's "programs and sports" while continuing to advocate for "the preservation of freedom." (Washington Post)
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 13th 2019 at 10:08:49 AM
And so the rats continue to abandon ship.
Yeah, the NRA is screwed. Even the gun nuts are turning against them.
Letís hope it dies sooner rather than later. One liberal president is all itíll take to bring it back. And I sure as hell donít want another four years of trump.
Parkland students unveil sweeping gun-control proposal and hope for a youth voting surge in 2020 Ė The March for Our Lives ďPeace PlanĒ calls for a gun registry, an assault weapons ban and mandatory buybacks.
Trump now says he has 'an appetite' for stronger gun background checks Ė Trump has waffled on the issue of strengthening background checks in the weeks since back-to-back mass shootings.
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:33:41 AM
I checked their plan. It doesn't define "assault weapon". Sigh.
Yeah, I think any ban on assault weapons needs a clear precise definition of WTF an assault weapon actually is.
Still, I find myself more understanding of these kids. They at least have the excuse of youth and inexperience. A lot of older and more experienced politicians and policy makers can't seem to agree on a definition of "assault weapon" either.
Edited by M84 on Aug 21st 2019 at 10:12:09 PM
Yeah. The rest of the plan sounds generally good — licensing, buybacks, the works, which is major sea change in terms of gun legislation, but we need that level of shift in order to actually address the enormity of the problem — but whenever anyone uses "assault weapon" without actually defining it I find it that much harder to take them seriously because it's a great talking point but meaningless in policy terms.
Probably because itís seriously difficult to come up with a legally functional definition for the term.
I guess if I were a Parkland student who was pressed on a definition, I'd have probably said "Depends. What kind of gun was used to shoot up my school?"
That's it exactly. Which is why it's important to actually do it if you're proposing serious legislation. Even if it's something as broad and wide-reaching as "any semi-automatic rifle", then that's at least a definition and there's a legitimate argument to be made for banning them. (Rifles aren't exactly a go-to self defense weapon, and for hunting a bolt action or the like is certainly sufficient.) The problem with using the term "assault weapon" without defining it is that it's arguing in bad faith — it makes your position a chimera, malleable to fit the needs of the argument at any given moment.
For example, you often hear people talking about assault weapons as "weapons of war", and expressing credibility that such things would be legal for civilians to own. But modern infantry carries assault rifles (different than assault weapons!), which are by definition select-fire weapons capable of both semi automatic and fully automatic (or at least several-round burst) fire, which means they're already covered and all-but-banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
"That's not what I mean by assault weapon", says the person using the term? That's fine, I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. But until you do spell out what you mean — in specific, legally enforceable terms — then we can't even have a conversation about whether or not banning assault weapons is appropriate because we don't know what we're proposing to ban.
Licensing for self-loading, magazine fed weapons.
At that point why not just require the same licensing standard for all firearms? You may as well.
That's also silly. Not all weapons are equally dangerous, applying the same standards to all of them is pretty much just admitting you want to get as close as possible to banning all guns without running into constitutional issues, rather than trying to apply reasonable precautions appropriate to the level of risk a given weapon presents.
These are not mutually exclusive options. You can have licensing for all firearm possession, yet add additional restrictions for certain types of weapons considered esp. dangerous to public health. Like self-loading, magazine fed weapons.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?