After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Also for self defense, a home intruder is not going to say "oh I will wait until their 28 day period is over and they have a gun before I break into theor house"

 

I love it when people point to other countries that are less free than the USA as an example of how we should be.

"Oh they have less freedom, lets be like them."

 

Get a burglar alarm. It will be a deterrent, while you wait through the 28 days. Again, a gun isn't a necessity, it's a right...not a necessity.

 

Yea, I'm sure kids and teachers across the US feel ''free'' when they go to school, where they're afraid for their lives on a daily basis, that another mass shooting might happen. Free is subjective.

Le me say, I'm not pro-banning guns. But, there has to be some reform around how citizens obtain guns, legally.

 

Yeah it is a necessity.

 

I dont think people fear for theor lives on a daily basis in schools.

 

You might find this interesting. I'm trying to cross reference the information.

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/...e-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

 

So in other words, Storch was completely correct to say that only three school shootings involved an AR-15, and you were wrong to say that it was a lot more.

 

Not without a good justification as to why the delay is necessary.

Rights don't work that way. It isn't the gun that has to be necessary. It is the restriction on the gun that has to be necessary.

So why is it necessary to make someone wait that long if their background check has already cleared them?

 

The public interest would be to reduce mass murder. Whether it would or not is up to the legislature, in the first instance, and the courts in the second instance to decide. The test used would be the "rational basis test", which gives a strong benefit of the doubt to the lawmakers. I wouldn't advocate this myself, but if some weapons are particularly involved in mass shootings, that would provide the rational basis. Since weapons are an article of commerce, the commerce clause would provide ample authority for Congress to act. There is no doubt that Congress could do this. The only question is whether or not it should.

 

Banning all semi-auto and lever action rifles that accept detachable magazines will not do anything to reduce mass murder.

Probably not. Higher levels of scrutiny are much more appropriate when protecting a right.

But a ban on all semi-auto and lever action rifles that accept detachable magazines would not pass even the rational basis test unless someone could explain how these guns further mass murders.

Not if there was no plausible explanation as to how these guns are any deadlier than any other ordinary weapon.

In the absence of any justification for doing so, any such law would be unconstitutional.

 

This is interesting, but ''research'' can sometimes be flawed. Thank you for sharing it, though.

I think how I view this is sometimes the rights of the majority are infringed upon to bring about safety, because of horrific events done by a few. Like when we go to the airport, we have to go through a lot of security checks because of terrorism. There are certain impacts on 'innocent' people's lives because of the wrong doings of a few others. The few ruin it for everyone. So the 28 days might seem unfair to you, but it could save lives, in the end. Although, I read an article recently that said increasing gun waiting periods don't really lessen gun violence. lol

I'm not sure of all the answers, but some reform needs to be taken. Do you have ideas as to how to protect the public from the ''wrong'' people legally buying guns?

 

Such infringements are allowed only if they can be justified with a good reason however.

How would it save lives to make someone keep waiting after their background check has already cleared them?

It seems implausible that it would do anything to help, if the gun buyer had already passed their background check.

The proposals for "red flag" legislation would probably help. But it would need to respect due process rights.

More comprehensive background checks would also help. But we'd need better protections to make sure that only dangerous people are prevented from buying guns.

Limits on magazine size would also help reduce the severity of the massacres that do occur, but there is no way rural voters will ever allow such limitations to pass.

 

Yes it does, at least accoding to these links
The AR-15, the gun behind some of the worst mass shootings in America, explained
Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings
In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun
Here's What You Need To Know About The Weapons Of War Used In Mass Shootings | HuffPost
The AR-15 is the gun of choice for mass shootings and it’s easier to buy in Florida than a pistol
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...ecame-one-of-the-most-popular-guns-in-america
Here's how the AR-15 became the weapon of choice for America's mass shooters — and why it's so deadly
With AR-15s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops
AR-15 Rifles Are Beloved, Reviled and a Common Element in Mass Shootings[/QUOTE]

 

You are very inconvenient for the hardcore leftists here because you are open to gun control, but you are not an ideologue. Drink the koolaid!

 

[/QUOTE]
I love that the first link is to Vox. The left wing equivalent of Brietbart but worse. Im done.

 

I thought you and Storch were telling us about guns in addition to AR15s that were as effecient in mass shootings. On that basis, I suggested that they be regulated as well. Did I misunderstand you?

So far, the courts have been stingy about what rights deserve higher scrutiny. So far, Second Amendment rights don't qualify.

If they are frequently used in mass murders and have superior range and/or rapid firing capacity, I don't think that would be difficult.

But if they had superior range and/or rapid firepower, and were frequently used in mass shootings, there would be.

 

I love that the first link is to Vox. The left wing equivalent of Brietbart but worse. Im done.[/QUOTE]
How open minded of you. Do you disagree with the content? What about it do you find inaccurate? And what about the other eight articles? Chicken!

 

Why are people pretending as if only school shootings count

I've been avoiding this thread for the most part because everything that can be said has been said over and over..but one of the things I see repeated everytime I pop in is that mass shootings involving AR15s only count if they took place in a school.

 

Handguns are worse. Lets ban handguns and ARs.