Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheSavageDonut t1_irbmqno wrote

As we've seen repeatedly recently, a mass murderer posts hatred online, posts plans to shoot some place up online, purchases guns, and follows through on said online postings.

How does a society stop such a mass murderer? Our current laws do nothing, and apparently any attempt to remedy this situation gets tossed out by a conservative judge.

How does reasonable gun legislation ever get passed in this country?

It wasn't like New York was demanding to seize and melt down firearms.

Trump even said at one point "we've got to get the guns" when asked how to stop mass murder events in the U.S.

−54

fbtcu1998 t1_irbrj5e wrote

This issue with the law is it creates a purely subjective measure in reviewing social media accounts before allowing someone to exercise a right. Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters. But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

The states can set whatever reasonable objective criteria they want...training requirement, BG check, etc. Once that objective criteria is met, they issue the permit.
What they can't do is let one person, in their own judgement, decide who is worthy despite the objective criteria being met.

25

Sparroew t1_iriywhi wrote

Well, that is one issue with the law. There was a separate issue in that New York allowed concealed carry and then made practically the entire state a gun-free zone, rendering that permit a very expensive and useless piece of paper.

1

TheSavageDonut t1_irbs520 wrote

>Sure, it would be nice if was just used to stop mass shooters.

It's meant to do just that.

>But one could just as easily decide you're not of "good moral character" because you are a Mets fan and not a Yankees fan, you're a Democrat instead of Republican, you disagree with a mayor's policy, you talk about smoking weed, you claim you once had an abortion, you prefer chocolate to vanilla, whatever that person finds immoral. Subjective criteria to exercise a right is never a good idea.

This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

We already have the Patriot Act to "catch" the actual serious stuff and not Mets fans.

−37

fbtcu1998 t1_irbunwe wrote

>It's meant to do just that

They aren't trying to stop mass shootings, they're trying to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just potential mass shooters.

>This is just fear disguised as innocent concern

I wouldn't say fear, more like history repeating itself. MLK was denied a permit to carry a firearm because he wasn't of "good moral character". Of course it was because of who he was and what he was saying, but they disguised it by claiming morality. It was a bad idea then, its a bad idea now. The only difference in the two is who they want to deny, but its still the government deciding who can exercise a right.

27

richalex2010 t1_irdv72x wrote

> This is just fear disguised as innocent concern.

This is literally what "good moral standing" clauses in almost every state's carry permit schemes was meant to do. It's a way of getting around the 14th amendment's equal protection clause without explicitly saying "black people can't have guns" - they'd just rule on a "case by case" basis and determine that almost no black person had "good moral standing" instead. How these rules are actually applied has evolved, but it boils down to the same idea - people the cops don't like don't get guns, doesn't matter if it's a reasonable concern over public safety or because they don't like an applicant's accent.

Police oversight is already basically nonexistent when they choke someone to death, what makes you think there's sufficient oversight to avoid misconduct in the permit issuing process?

12

Ares1935 t1_irdb60o wrote

Maybe we should spend more time exploring the motives for murder.

Lest these individuals turn to cars, ieds, knives, or poison as other ways to release their aggressions.

4

TheSavageDonut t1_irfhi3i wrote

So, you're answer is maybe we should do nothing and put our heads in the sand?

−1

Ares1935 t1_irfia55 wrote

I literally said what I thought we should do... and it was not nothing.

Take the guns or don't take the guns, killings will still happen, with illegal guns, or some other way. Maybe it's fewer killings, but im sure it won't be zero.

So we will be right back here asking why. Reducing crime has always been about understanding motive.

3

jay_killuminati t1_irbvj57 wrote

> How does reasonable gun legislation ever get passed in this country?

It never will be. Getting randomly murdered while grocery shopping or while going to school is now the price we pay to live in America.

−23

barrinmw t1_irby39o wrote

Dead children in schools are to be expected. Their right to live is superseded by our right to kill them.

−25