Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

A common-sense idea to help prevent gun violence

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A common-sense idea to help prevent gun violence

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/

    The idea presented is the legal construct of a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). It would allow law enforcement to get a temporary warrant to prevent firearm purchases and confiscate existing weapons, based on evidence like the public statements made by the Parkland shooter.

    Key points:

    》Requires a judge - due process is at the core
    》Temporary, but renewable if evidence is presented to show a continuing threat
    》Allows the accused to present evidence to counter charges
    》Not based solely on mental health, but biased towards observed actions by the individual themselves

    In conjunction with expanded background checks, it might help stop these violent acts without requiring a change to settled law or an act of Congress. The states could do this individually.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 03-04-2018, 08:29 AM.
    "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

  • #2
    I can see that having some impact but you should change the thread title to "... help reduce gun violence."

    There have been many instances where the shooter was not a criminal and did not exhibit mental heath issues until the shooting.

    If you really want to prevent gun violence then prevent the easy access to dangerous and deadly weapons. I realize that this goes against you belief that, by birthright, every American citizen should have access to the same weapons used by law enforcement.

    My question is do you want to prevent gun violence or do you want to be able to buy a machine gun?


    .
    Last edited by onelife; 03-04-2018, 08:57 AM.
    "Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame,
    how we break each other's hearts
    and cause each other pain"

    Comment


    • #3
      Only useful when the shooter is a clear and known danger. Why would a clear and known danger should have the ability to purchase a weapon is beyond me. Keep in mind the clear and known danger would be defended by the pro 2nd folks unless he/she has a criminal record of violence.

      IOW, almost completely useless.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by oldsoapbars View Post
        Only useful when the shooter is a clear and known danger. Why would a clear and known danger should have the ability to purchase a weapon is beyond me. Keep in mind the clear and known danger would be defended by the pro 2nd folks unless he/she has a criminal record of violence.

        IOW, almost completely useless.
        Yep...Cruz was a legal gun owner till he shot up that school....Paddock was a legal gun owner till he killed 58 in Las Vegas...any legal gun owner can snap. It's time to take those type weapons out of their hands.
        Last edited by Hoddy; 03-04-2018, 09:18 AM.
        Guns Over People

        Comment


        • RogueGnome
          RogueGnome commented
          Editing a comment
          Hey, he'll never do that again!

      • #5
        Originally posted by SteinbergerHack
        Machine guns aren't part of the discussion, and haven't been since the 1930s.
        I used the term "machine gun" in the generic sense to describe a gun which is capable of delivering a lot of bullets in a short time (think: killing machine).

        In any case, I believe it is narrow-minded thinking to limit yourself to one or the other. The goal should be to preserve our rights AND stop violence.
        How's that working out for you? I see the rights are still being preserved.

        Click image for larger version  Name:	DWFYlL_VMAA6QaV?format=jpg.jpg Views:	1 Size:	171.6 KB ID:	32175359
        https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/ho...tings-in-2018/


        .
        Last edited by onelife; 03-04-2018, 10:00 AM.
        "Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame,
        how we break each other's hearts
        and cause each other pain"

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

          It could have stopped Parkland, Va Tech, and Charleston, and probably a lot more that didn't make the headlines because they were inner-city kids that don't make for good media items.
          I doubt it. He didn't have criminal record of violence. Are you suggesting that the shooters have their rights circumvented because they are troubled without any criminal activity?

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by SteinbergerHack
            Machine guns aren't part of the discussion, and haven't been since the 1930s.
            But, they're still legal to own. Why aren't they part of the discussion then?

            Comment


            • onelife
              onelife commented
              Editing a comment
              I find that some ardent Second Amendment supporters tend to argue semantics when people, with no other agenda than to end the suffering, use the 'wrong' terminology to describe the actual arms used in mass shootings.

          • #8
            Originally posted by willhaven View Post
            But, they're still legal to own. Why aren't they part of the discussion then?
            And lets not forget bump stocks...they have to be added into the equation.
            Guns Over People

            Comment


            • #9
              Well, it couldn’t hurt. I’d be all for implementing this, but w would still need to do much more, of course. This may have stopped Nikolas Cruz. It would have been useless against Stephen Paddock and many many others

              Comment


              • #10
                I find it noteworthy that the same gun fans who are so adamant about the strict definitions of terms like “machine gun” and “assault weapon” throw around terms like “protect our rights” so broadly.

                No one has a “right” to an AR-15. The courts have been pretty clear about this.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                  Because legally owned full autos simply aren't used in criminal acts. 2 times in 80 years, and one of those was by a police officer.

                  No problem, no reason to change.
                  Have you ever stopped to consider why they have been used so infrequently?

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                    No, they have not. SCOTUS has not issued such a ruling, and Heller's stance on common use leans the opposite direction. Failing to take a case is NOT issuing a ruling, no matter how much you wish it to be the case, nor how many times you make this false assertion.
                    I didn’t say the SCOTUS ever issued a ruling. Where did I make this “assertion”? But lower courts have issued such rulings and the SCOTUS has declined to hear appeals on these rulings more than once.

                    If that isn’t “leaning in the direction of”, I don’t know what is.

                    so rather than falsely accusing me of making “false assertions”, you may want to focus on better understanding just what rights the 2nd amendment actually protects and not misrepresenting what our rights actually are.
                    Last edited by guido61; 03-04-2018, 11:24 AM.

                    Comment


                    • onelife
                      onelife commented
                      Editing a comment
                      I think the OP has his FAKE NEWS!!!! (Shoot The Messenger) hat on today.
                      Last edited by onelife; 03-04-2018, 12:02 PM.

                  • #13
                    Doesn't lying presupposes an intent to deceive? Happy to provide a dictionary link to anybody unclear on the words meaning.
                    __________________________________________________

                    Is This Thing On?

                    https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      Rightly are the simple so called.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by SteinbergerHack

                        Temporary restraining orders are issued all the time without conviction. This is an expansion of that concept. A judge is required to evaluate the evidence, so there is due process protectio .
                        How does the court define who gets a gun and who doesn't? Without any criminal activity you can how easily deny a gun (which doesn't require a permit to own). Remember that "feelings" are not admissible in court. You must know that people say dumb schidt every day. What about blacks, aren't there studies showing higher violent crimes among the AA community? What about Latinos, are they a current whipping boy and perceived as a criminal element?

                        I would suggest that you need a purchase permit that must meet judicial review including (amongst other things) a psych eval, criminal background check, medical proof of competency, and have completed an intensive training program. While this won't stop every shooter it will give another tool to the courts.

                        Comment


                        • oldsoapbars
                          oldsoapbars commented
                          Editing a comment
                          I would also suggest that if you insist on weapons like the AR, that you carry an insurance policy on it.
                      Working...
                      X