From the Bloomberg op-ed mouthpiece: here's the next front

[doofus47]

http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_24688560/research-shows-which-behaviors-can-put-others-at

More research will, I'm sure, turn up more "dangerous elements" amongst the ciitzenry. Not sure if a 10 year ban is the goal for all of these new sub-sets of citizens, but this appears to be the new chisel for chipping away.

Or maybe I am just way behind the curve.
edit: Theohazard has asked for a bit more info (to avoid drive by status). Good point.
The short summary is that this op-ed piece points out that besides the well-recognized groups of people that are banned from possessing firearms (e.g.: Felons), research shows that other behaviors are indicative of a high potential for violent behavior. One of the examples given: 2 drunk driving offenses within 5 years. The article suggests banning these people from possessing firearms for possibly 10 years.

So, it appears that the next trenches of the gun debate will be fought by statistical analysis of behavior and demographics rather than crime stats. "Why 10 years? Do you have 20 years of data that shows that people with 2 drunk driving violations are potentially violent for the next 10 years?"

 

[Chaz88]

One of the things I have hard time getting around is how gun violence is its own special category. If you are wounded or killed by some other kind of violence are you somehow less violated or dead?

 

[Theohazard]

Doofus47, could you give a quick summary of the article? As it is now, your OP is pretty close to a drive-by and stands a good chance of being closed by the mods. Also, I'd rather not have to read the piece myself, as it will probably anger me enough that I'll end up ranting to my wife about it, and she's pretty tired of my anti-gun-control rants after the year we've had in the gun world!

 

[JimDandy]

A bunch of fear mongering about things already prohibited that should be, but hints that they aren't. Violent misdemeanors, involuntary commitments, and so on.

 

[Tom Servo]

Some group called the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy (I know anti-gun groups, and I've never heard of these guys) wants to establish a set of criteria under which people are subject to temporary (10 years by their suggestion) deprivation of the right to own guns. There's no indication of how they'll get around pesky things like due process.

Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.

 

[doofus47]

Tom S:

Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

Quote:
So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.

Agreed 100%, but considering the numbers of people who don't care about NSA behavior b/c "I'm not a terrorist".... This might be a good move for the anti-gunners: create some FUD about dangerous people going undetected, then tell people that "science" tells us who these people are. PM news report summary "It's not YOU, it's the other guy you don't know. These 'moderate laws' will help keep us all safe." Science makes all things bearable, especially when other people have to bear 'it.'

 

[rebs]

Looks like their goal is to have more citizens on a list that cannot own guns. They will chip away until everyone for one reason or another will not be allowed to own a gun. Seems like another form of gun control to disarm the citizens.

 

[MTT TL]

Good to some unbiased research from:

a collection of gun violence scholars at major universities who call themselves the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy

The caps made me a gigggle a bit.

And as it turns out, the list of People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Possess a Gun may be inadequate.

If you are going to propagandize you may as well do all you can to emphasize your points.

 

[Chaz88]

10 years is not a temporary ban in my world. If the plan was to change the people the are permanently banned to 10 years I could probably support that. But in general I think once someone has served their time or had the case disposed of they should have their rights and privileges returned. There is no need to go looking for new and unfounded ways to ban more people.

That "reasonable" inch becomes more ridiculous all the time.

 

[Chaz88]

Frankly, this should be enough to make any rational person reject their argument:

Quote:
So is the loss of individual rights worth the increase in public safety? Possibly.

Unfortunately for the irrational majority the answer has been yes for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Post 9-11 fear has helped pave the way for overreach on a number of issues.

 

[jimbob86]

Looks like their goal is to have more citizens on a list that cannot own guns. They will chip away until everyone for one reason or another will not be allowed to own a gun. Seems like another form of gun control to disarm the citizens.

Agreed: More Incrementalism/Slippery Slope/Compromise (Nibbling at Lawdog's Cake) ........

Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?

No, and those who think so will, eventually, have neither.

"Safety" is as bottomless and black a pit as "Need": you can sacrifice everything you have, and everything everyone else has, and it will never be filled in...... and you are left with nothing, and void remains.

 

[psyfly]

Thank you, jimbob86, for turning the statement around so it now makes sense in English:

Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?

The way the author (not the Original Poster) originally stated it, it made no sense.

And, thank you for:

"Safety" is as bottomless and black a pit as "Need": you can sacrifice everything you have, and everything everyone else has, and it will never be filled in...... and you are left with nothing, and void remains.

I'd like your permission to quote this one widely. (If granted, please PM me with an appropriate attribution if "jimbob86 on TFL" won't serve.)

Best,

Will

 

[MTT TL]

Reemphasize:

People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Possess a Gun

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Seeing as Chicago politicians statistically have about a 30% chance of being convicted of a felony I'd recommend they be permanently banned from owning firearms.

 

[Tom Servo]

Is the increase in "Safety" worth the loss of more Freedom?

I've never seen proof, from anywhere or any time, that giving up freedom in exchange for safety has actually made anyone safer.

If that were the case, gun-control advocates could quote real statistics showing that the 1968 and 1994 laws reduced gun violence. They can't.

 

[JimDandy]

Well if you guys go line by line of the people they want to give a 10 year ban to, it's mostly people already under a life-time ban. They work very hard to hint at classes of already Prohibited Persons not being prohibited. The "involuntarily committed" are Adjudicated Mentally Deficient for example. You could go 1 for 1 with every example they have, and find a 4473 question their hypothetical person can't answer honestly and pass the form.

Edit To Add: I haven't seen a study Tom, I doubt there is one, so it's causation/correlation right now, but there has been one part of the 93-94 omnibus stuff from Clinton's crime/gun package in effect for the full 20+ year homicide downturn. The AWB came and went. Grants for local police funding has probably come and gone with various funding levels. Background checks have been in place for pretty much the full time, and are probably here to stay

 

[Aguila Blanca]

a collection of gun violence scholars at major universities who call themselves the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy

That right there is enough to undermine any credibility they might hope to have. There's nothing like parsing the input to focus on your particular obsession.

The problem is violence. Guns are but one tool that can be used to perpetrate violence. When you focus solely on violence perpetrated with guns, you can't possibly hope to have much impact on violence in general. It's like trying to improve traffic safety by studying and responding ONLY to accident caused by burned out brake lights. Never mind bald tires, faulty brakes, cell phone abuse, drunk drivers, etc. -- we have to address the burned out brake light problem if we're going to reduce accidents.

 

[TimSr]

One of the things I have hard time getting around is how gun violence is its own special category. If you are wounded or killed by some other kind of violence are you somehow less violated or dead?

I know what you mean. To me, a person who beats somebody to death with his fists is far more violent, and mentally a greater threat to society than somebody who shoots someone. It takes a special kind of evil to kill somebody up close and personal.

 

[MTT TL]

Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy

Here is a quick run down of their game plan:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/g...cle_88eb0fb0-5bd1-11e3-84d8-0019bb30f31a.html

Other recommendations did not target the mentally ill in particular. The group recommended a special warrant that would allow police to remove firearms from the possession of people authorities believe to be a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, the consortium proposed a new civil restraining order process could allow citizens to petition the court for the temporary removal of firearms from friends or family members who are considered at that time to be dangerous, according to the report.
Other high-risk populations targeted by the consortium's recommendations include people with histories of substance abuse and domestic violence.

There is a lot more at the link. I'd point out that the last group is already banned from ownership so we are back to the "double secret" ban.

 

[jimbob86]

Well if you guys go line by line of the people they want to give a 10 year ban to, it's mostly people already under a life-time ban.

Were it not for the "mostly" in there ..... hmmmm......

So they want to remove the lifetime bans and replace them with 10 year bans?



Do they think about the things they propose or just spout them out like they get paid per idea, dumb or not?

That does make more sense than adding a ten year ban on top of the lifetime ban ..... but then again, these are the kind of people that brought us Life+x years in prison .... words are malleable with them ......


Lifetime + 10 years? So you can't buy a gun from your casket?

....and if you do posses a gun in the 10 years after your death, then it is still a felony, and you should be charged, and if convicted, and put on the Infinity year ban list ......... and if that does not work, we'll pass another law, to make gun possession even moar ......... illegallllllllllllllll............ er? Then, of course on to moar illegallest! Then, We'll just add meaningless suffixes! ....... Moar Illegallestishmentness!

Silly, yes ...... but not as silly as the thinking of these people, who seem to believe that if they just have another study in support of passing a feel-good law, then people that are inclined to do violence to others will give 3 toots in a tornado that they are violating any law, let alone the laws that they are constantly dreaming up .... Laws only affect the Law-abiding.