Officials: Shootings Involving Children Up 500 Percent From Last Year
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/29/officials-shootings-involving-children-up-500-from-last-year/BALTIMORE (WJZ)A young child, killed in a double shooting in southwest Baltimore just as another young victim is released from the hospital, with a bullet still in his leg. Police say its all part of a disturbing and growing trend
Baltimores homicides swell to 38 this monthtotaling 111 so far this year.
Lawmakers say non-fatal shootings of children in Baltimore is up 500-percent from last year.
--------------------------------
Too many guns....
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Sancho
(9,103 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Big_Mike
(509 posts)1. As currently defined by the court, possessing a gun is an individual right. You do not need a permit for free speech, to worship, or to put something in a newspaper (all 1st amendment rights). I could go on and on regarding the 4th, 5th, etc. amendments (I'll skip trying to talk about the 3rd Amendment).
2. I agree fully with background checks. They should be free to the public, and everyone should be able to run a check. This eliminates that "gun show loophole" and completely levels the playing field. However, background checks must be instant in nature, e.g., when submitted and answer must be given immediately. Also, once a background check is completed, that would satisfy the need for any further checks for 1 - 2 calendar years. Once a citizen has been certified, no need for further checks until the end of that period.
3. Agree. Some sort of proof of familiarity with the type weapon being bought, with exemptions for military and police veterans who can prove use of that type weapon (qualification badges/records, awards, etc.) As an example, I was the Armorer for my unit, and we had bolt-action rifles, recoil-operated rifles, and gas-operated automatic weapons, revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, sub-machine guns, and full up machine guns. They are all listed on my training records. I don't think I should have to take additional classes and testing.
4. As you state, the age thing. If someone can enlist in the military and die for their country at 17 (with parental consent), I see no reason why owning weapons should be any different (I have the same argument for all of the vices as well, such as smoking, drinking, and age of consent for sex)
5. If you want insurance, it should be optional. Otherwise, it is a tax on a right.
6. With proof of background check, purchase away, no waiting period.
7. Nope.
8. Nope. Against the 2nd Amendment. Don't like it, repeal the 2nd Amendment (I won't hold my breath on this one).
9. I don't think a record of what is bought should be kept. Only that you have had the check run. From there, it is no one else's business but your own.
10. I think it should be like driving, with points assessed for different issues. Accidental discharge (no injury), Accidental discharge (with injury), child handling weapon unsupervised, etc. I also believe that the whole restraining order weapon loss needs to be revamped. I have personally seen three many cases where vindictive spouses have claimed abuse, and multi-thousand dollar weapon collections were confiscated and damaged to such an extent that they were essentially valueless. Let alone trying to recover weapons at a later date, once the charges were disproven for found lacking on grounds.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)The bottom line is simple.
1.) You can read scholarly sources and see that interpretation of the 2nd over decades is all over the place. Legal interpretations could change. One reference is The Second Amendment: A Biography. If you don't like Waldman, at least he has references to all the typical court cases until last year so you can pick some other source.
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1433156016&sr=8-6&keywords=2nd+amendment+books
2.) You mention the age to drink, drive, etc. I was personally part of the rowdy crowd who was A1 in the draft and fought to get the 18 year old vote. I also was part of those who ALMOST got the ERA ratified. We did see Title IX passed. In other words, new amendments and changes are possible - so holding my breath is no problem. I've seen it happen when everyone said there was NO WAY.
The legal eagles always have the same argument that "Last "week, year, etc" some court in "Washington, Arkansas, etc." held that "gun use cannot be restricted" because "etc., etc.". All those cases are documented. There will be another case next year.
We know that the number of households possessing guns is going down, and lately the number of deaths bottomed out and started going up again. At some point, public values will change (like LGBT), and there may be enough momentum to do something rational. The Brady Bill was a step in the right direction, and it was law for a while.
IMHO, the NRA made a logical error to put their eggs in the basket of "carry permits", because my "license" is no more than an expanded version. If people are familiar with something and see a problem, then using the familiar tool generates less opposition. Politically, the "license/permit/certification" process provides a solution that could work.