General Gun Violence/Gun Control

[AngTxGal]

Nobody has proposed removing guns from the hands of "all elderly." The defendant in this case will no doubt have a mental evaluation.

Red Flag laws allow families and law enforcement to step in and remove access to guns from someone who shows signs of dementia or instability and who refuses to give up their guns. JMO

If RedFlag laws are supposed to do what you have said then a person who has been flagged would lose their ability to defend themselves.

In order for a RedFlag to have worked in this case, someone would have to know his mental state, that he had guns, and believe he was a danger to himself or others. Next, that someone would have to contact the authorities, fill out paperwork etc. so his guns could be removed.

From what I’ve read, the two grandsons do not agree about his state of mind And beliefs.
This highlights elderly who try to live independently, and family is not checking up on them regularly.
IMO
He should not have shot the boy. He likely should not have had a gun. He certainly should not have shot the boy through the door and then pursued him and shot him again.

He did say he was afraid and thought the boy was trying to break into his home.
IMO he wasn’t that afraid or he would not have opened the door, shot, and then walked out into the yard to shoot the boy a second time. That is not what an afraid person does, that is what an aggressor does.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

If RedFlag laws are supposed to do what you have said then a person who has been flagged would lose their ability to defend themselves.

In order for a RedFlag to have worked in this case, someone would have to know his mental state, that he had guns, and believe he was a danger to himself or others. Next, that someone would have to contact the authorities, fill out paperwork etc. so his guns could be removed.

From what I’ve read, the two grandsons do not agree about his state of mind And beliefs.
This highlights elderly who try to live independently, and family is not checking up on them regularly.
IMO
He should not have shot the boy. He likely should not have had a gun. He certainly should not have shot the boy through the door and then pursued him and shot him again.

He did say he was afraid and thought the boy was trying to break into his home.
IMO he wasn’t that afraid or he would not have opened the door, shot, and then walked out into the yard to shoot the boy a second time. That is not what an afraid person does, that is what an aggressor does.

JMO

BBM. Defend themselves from whom? The purpose of the law is to prevent a mentally disturbed individual from violently harming themselves or others.

No mention in this linked article that the grandfather "walked out into the yard to shoot the boy a second time."

According to this article, only one of the brothers has been routinely in contact with his grandfather.
"These people are not close to him like I am," Daniel Ludwig told the Times in a text message. He also said the grandfather was "literally too nice" and "spoiled" other relatives.

Grandson of white man who shot Black teen who rang his doorbell says he 'wasn't shocked' by news

"I believe he held -- holds -- racist tendencies and beliefs," Klint Ludwig said of his grandfather, Andrew Lester.

abc7chicago.com

 

[10ofRods]

When you say you need 2/3 of the 50 states are you referring to the actual population of each state or 2/3 of the elected officials in each state? In Canada, we do referendums strictly by population, not by representative. Much more fair and accurate. At least a person's own bias makes the voting decision, not someone who is voting on 'your' behalf and not the political party's platform. Also, the Canadian government has failed to implement a referendum vote when the voter turnout was low or the difference between the yay's and nay's was so low as to be negligible. Case in point: voting for Prohibition in 1898.

Each state gets one vote at a Constitutional Convention.

So, it's a majority of voters in EACH state that sets that state's vote.

However, let's go back one step. Before we can have a Constitutional Convention. we have to have both houses vote by a ⅔ majority on the same amendment.

Full stop right there. Neither the House nor the Senate has a ⅔ majority in favor of gun control. And if both Houses get caught up in trying write and pass amendments, gun control won't be the only issue, IMO.

It has nothing to do with elected officials in each state (I'm not sure what that means, in any case). It starts with elected representatives in the House and the Senate.

Then, it goes to ⅔ of the States themselves.

Congress gets to decide whether it shall be by the legislative process in each State (both House and Senate in each state) OR a special Constitutional Convention (in each state - in which ⅔ of the delegates must agree).

It's not based on a referendum (popular vote). However, the election of the representatives (whether in the state legistative branches or a special convenion) is based on a popular vote.

We need 38 states to agree (by either one method or the other - with the choice of method being up to Congress.

Right now, we can't get a ⅔ majority on nearly anything in either the House or the Senate - but when it comes to State by State voting, well, just google "Red States vs. Blue States." See if you think there are 38 who are in favor of gun control.

IMO. Here's a wikipedia article on Article 5 of the Constitution (rules for changing the Constitution):

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AngTxGal]

Correctly written, Red Flag laws are as Constitutional as Emergency Orders of Protection for victims of domestic violence. A Judge signs the Order. Due Process is followed. Plenty of information available on the Internet about how the process works in each state that has enacted them. The guns aren't seized "forever."

To begin with “correctly written”, implies they could be written wrong.
Agreed. I can see tons of ways a RedFlag could go wrong And impact people who should not have been RedFlagged.

I still agree with the spirit of RedFlag Laws.
The strength is in how it is implemented, who investigates, who finds evidence, what evidence is used, who makes the determination, where the guns go, and how a person could obtain them back.
It would make sense that the guns would go to family, to be locked away.

IMO

 

[MyBelle]

Each state gets one vote at a Constitutional Convention.

So, it's a majority of voters in EACH state that sets that state's vote.

However, let's go back one step. Before we can have a Constitutional Convention. we have to have both houses vote by a ⅔ majority on the same amendment.

Full stop right there. Neither the House nor the Senate has a ⅔ majority in favor of gun control. And if both Houses get caught up in trying write and pass amendments, gun control won't be the only issue, IMO.

It has nothing to do with elected officials in each state (I'm not sure what that means, in any case). It starts with elected representatives in the House and the Senate.

Then, it goes to ⅔ of the States themselves.

Congress gets to decide whether it shall be by the legislative process in each State (both House and Senate in each state) OR a special Constitutional Convention (in each state - in which ⅔ of the delegates must agree).

It's not based on a referendum (popular vote). However, the election of the representatives (whether in the state legistative branches or a special convenion) is based on a popular vote.

We need 38 states to agree (by either one method or the other - with the choice of method being up to Congress.

Right now, we can't get a ⅔ majority on nearly anything in either the House or the Senate - but when it comes to State by State voting, well, just google "Red States vs. Blue States." See if you think there are 38 who are in favor of gun control.

IMO. Here's a wikipedia article on Article 5 of the Constitution (rules for changing the Constitution):

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm optimistic it will happen on a federal level after the 2024 national election. Gun violence is off the charts. And Governors in Red States such as Tennessee and Kentucky are leaning in support of tighter gun safety laws, that's a good sign.

JMO

 

[10ofRods]

But by this reasoning those of us in non-weaponised communities (such as Australia) should have seen a rise in mass pencil stabbings or home invasions simply because we no longer have guns to prevent these events. I'm interested in your thoughts on why that wasn't the case?

How do you know that you haven't? Australia reports that 4-5% of its population is violently assaulted every year (not counting murders). The US had about 500,000 violent assaults in 2020. That's less than 1%.

We just have more guns. The 500,000 figure just quoted for the US includes all manner of assaults not resulting in death. It excludes the gun deaths.

In 2020, we had our worst year ever (although 2023 is looking bad as well). We had about 43,000 homicides by gun. That's a very small percentage of our 350,000,000 people. Non-lethal gun assaults are included in our overall "violent assault rate" - just as it is in every nation.

Speaking of murders only, the US has a higher rate than Australia. Our overall homicide rate is 7.8 per 100,000 deaths (not per 100,000 of population). Australia's is a mere .86 (less than 1) per 100,000. But of our 8X higher homicide rate, I'm not sure we can attribute all of that excess merely to guns.

The 45,000 figure for the US includes suicides. I didn't count suicides in the Australia data. It seems clear that guns increase the likelihood that the victim will die. But the rates of victimization are interesting.

I am hopefully clear that I think guns make assaults more lethal. But do not discount the fact that UK and Australia do indeed have equal or more lethal non-gun assaults than the US does. 31,000 people were sexually assaulted in Australia in 2022. We had about 10X as many. But we have more than 10X the number of people as Australia. Australia has 26 million people or thereabouts.

The US has 330,000,000. More than 10X more Americans than Australians. So I'd call that at least equal. Context is important.

So I'll grant that in the total study of violence, absence of guns means that Australians have way fewer homicides, but it has a significant amount of other assaults. It may well be that other forms of assault make up for the difference.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.

www.pewresearch.org

Crime in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recorded Crime - Victims, 2023

National statistics about victims of a range of personal, household and family and domestic violence offences as recorded by police.

www.abs.gov.au

What we know about the increase in U.S. murders in 2020

The U.S. murder rate rose 30% between 2019 and 2020 – the largest single-year increase in more than a century.

www.pewresearch.org

I chose the US's worst year so far (2020) as the basis of my comparison. I did not choose Australia's worse year for comparison. But to me, it does seem that other kinds of assaults are at least as high or higher in the US - but less lethal, due to lack of guns. This is an argument in favor of gun control - whereas you seem to be blaming individual characters or national character for the US's rates of homicide. I think that takes very careful analysis which, even after years of studying crime, I myself am not prepared to do.

IMO.

 

[10ofRods]

I'm optimistic it will happen on a federal level after the 2024 national election. Gun violence is off the charts. And Governors in Red States such as Tennessee and Kentucky are leaning in support of tighter gun safety laws, that's a good sign.

JMO

There is no "federal level" from my point of view. I suppose it's possible that some states sending Senators and Representatives to D.C. will liberalize (I'm not optimistic). But this is more like a state's rights thing. I am not at all optimistic that the red states are going to send blue representatives and senators to DC.

Governors do not choose Representatives or Senators. They can stand aside and get political points for squabbling with their own reps.

Governors may want gun control (they have to balance their budgets and there's no money for more policing in most places, unless we want education or healthcare to crash).

But this has to come from individual precincts sending representatives to Washington - and that means that red states will have to stop electing anti-abortion, pro-gun people (I do not see that happening in the next year, honestly). Not in the numbers needed.

So we'll have to wait another 4-6 years. As always. As it has been for most of my life. I hope some of you live to see fewer guns in the US, but I am not optimistic for my own remaining lifetime.

JMO.

 

[10ofRods]

If RedFlag laws are supposed to do what you have said then a person who has been flagged would lose their ability to defend themselves.

In order for a RedFlag to have worked in this case, someone would have to know his mental state, that he had guns, and believe he was a danger to himself or others. Next, that someone would have to contact the authorities, fill out paperwork etc. so his guns could be removed.

From what I’ve read, the two grandsons do not agree about his state of mind And beliefs.
This highlights elderly who try to live independently, and family is not checking up on them regularly.
IMO
He should not have shot the boy. He likely should not have had a gun. He certainly should not have shot the boy through the door and then pursued him and shot him again.

He did say he was afraid and thought the boy was trying to break into his home.
IMO he wasn’t that afraid or he would not have opened the door, shot, and then walked out into the yard to shoot the boy a second time. That is not what an afraid person does, that is what an aggressor does.

JMO

Or a demented person.

There really ought to be local laws prohibiting gun ownership OR car driving unless one can prove competence up until old age. Everyone is living longer, the true rate of dementia is only now being calculated. I think we've plateaued and will not see an increase in overall life expectance - either by nation or by state (and internationally as well).

IMO.

 

[AngTxGal]

There are unhinged individuals all around the world, everywhere, absolutely everywhere. You can analyse the root causes of why some resort to violence ad infinitum.

However, from a pool of unhinged individuals, frequent episodes of extreme violence tend to arise from those who can access weapons. This is not possible in all countries.

The only gun law that can stop this madness and prevent people from this level of anger and violence is a gun law that bans the access to guns to the masses.

If the Second Amendment is not working, time to admit defeat. Better that than having 9-year olds being shot down every day. It's just so incredibly senseless and hurtful and utterly damaging, innocent lives being lost for NOTHING!, and the everlasting impact to their families.

I know many of you feel very differently on this subject and you have your reasons, but this is my perspective. I don't live in the US, so again whatever I say will count for less. I don't expect to sway you, just putting my thoughts on the table. MOO.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “masses” but it isn’t possible to simply pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist Or failed.
To get to anything resembling banning access to guns to ‘the masses’…
Those same masses would have to vote into office Senators and Representatives from all 50 states that support dissolving The United States Constitution, after each of those members of Congress had vowed to uphold The US Constitution.
Next the masses would have to vote into office a President that agreed- after he had been sworn into office by stating that he vows to upload The US Constitution.
Finally that President would have to be supported by all 12 Supreme Court Justices, appointed by past presidents, who take a lifetime oath to uphold The US Constitution.
Why does it take all three- because that is how the checks and balances works. The ultimate power lies in the Supreme Court to deem a law unconstitutional- and it is out.

Is there a way to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and that way not be ‘unconstitutional’? No.

If we want to make the most difference to save lives using math and common sense…

Over 40% of Americans are gun owners.
Over 98% of mass shootings are acts by white males.

Ban all white American men from having guns.

Could that happen? Yes, in theory as the US population is currently over 50% female.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

There is no "federal level" from my point of view. I suppose it's possible that some states sending Senators and Representatives to D.C. will liberalize (I'm not optimistic). But this is more like a state's rights thing. I am not at all optimistic that the red states are going to send blue representatives and senators to DC.

Governors do not choose Representatives or Senators. They can stand aside and get political points for squabbling with their own reps.

Governors may want gun control (they have to balance their budgets and there's no money for more policing in most places, unless we want education or healthcare to crash).

But this has to come from individual precincts sending representatives to Washington - and that means that red states will have to stop electing anti-abortion, pro-gun people (I do not see that happening in the next year, honestly). Not in the numbers needed.

So we'll have to wait another 4-6 years. As always. As it has been for most of my life. I hope some of you live to see fewer guns in the US, but I am not optimistic for my own remaining lifetime.

JMO.

BBM. It's already started with the 2022 mid-terms when several states rejected the anti-abortion candidates.

The mass shootings have opened everyone's eyes to the need to reform gun laws to better protect public safety. Biden signed the bipartisan gun reform legislation last summer. Journalists are going to keep emphasizing it. JMO

States took millions to enact red-flag gun laws, but many still won't pass them

A Lee Enterprises review reveals that lawmakers in 31 states have not passed red-flag laws even as most of those states received federal funding through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

stltoday.com

 

[AngTxGal]

There is no "federal level" from my point of view. I suppose it's possible that some states sending Senators and Representatives to D.C. will liberalize (I'm not optimistic). But this is more like a state's rights thing. I am not at all optimistic that the red states are going to send blue representatives and senators to DC.

Governors do not choose Representatives or Senators. They can stand aside and get political points for squabbling with their own reps.

Governors may want gun control (they have to balance their budgets and there's no money for more policing in most places, unless we want education or healthcare to crash).

But this has to come from individual precincts sending representatives to Washington - and that means that red states will have to stop electing anti-abortion, pro-gun people (I do not see that happening in the next year, honestly). Not in the numbers needed.

So we'll have to wait another 4-6 years. As always. As it has been for most of my life. I hope some of you live to see fewer guns in the US, but I am not optimistic for my own remaining lifetime.

JMO.

Yes, what ‘federal level’ path is there to any gun control laws?
There is none that is completely federal, as all voting citizens in all states have a say about who represents them In Congress.

If we want change, we who are willing must rise above the liberal looney left and rigid wingnut right. At least 1/3 of Americans are center, Libertarians, or Independents.
Those voters need to find common ground and a Very Loud Voice!

JMO

 

[JennieM]

I’m not sure what you mean by the “masses” but it isn’t possible to simply pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist Or failed.
To get to anything resembling banning access to guns to ‘the masses’…
Those same masses would have to vote into office Senators and Representatives from all 50 states that support dissolving The United States Constitution, after each of those members of Congress had vowed to uphold The US Constitution.
Next the masses would have to vote into office a President that agreed- after he had been sworn into office by stating that he vows to upload The US Constitution.
Finally that President would have to be supported by all 12 Supreme Court Justices, appointed by past presidents, who take a lifetime oath to uphold The US Constitution.
Why does it take all three- because that is how the checks and balances works. The ultimate power lies in the Supreme Court to deem a law unconstitutional- and it is out.

Is there a way to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and that way not be ‘unconstitutional’? No.

If we want to make the most difference to save lives using math and common sense…

Over 40% of Americans are gun owners.
Over 98% of mass shootings are acts by white males.

Ban all white American men from having guns.

Could that happen? Yes, in theory as the US population is currently over 50% female.

JMO

Are your statistics up-to-date? What is your statistics source?

 

[MyBelle]

I’m not sure what you mean by the “masses” but it isn’t possible to simply pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist Or failed.
To get to anything resembling banning access to guns to ‘the masses’…
Those same masses would have to vote into office Senators and Representatives from all 50 states that support dissolving The United States Constitution, after each of those members of Congress had vowed to uphold The US Constitution.
Next the masses would have to vote into office a President that agreed- after he had been sworn into office by stating that he vows to upload The US Constitution.
Finally that President would have to be supported by all 12 Supreme Court Justices, appointed by past presidents, who take a lifetime oath to uphold The US Constitution.
Why does it take all three- because that is how the checks and balances works. The ultimate power lies in the Supreme Court to deem a law unconstitutional- and it is out.

Is there a way to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and that way not be ‘unconstitutional’? No.

If we want to make the most difference to save lives using math and common sense…

Over 40% of Americans are gun owners.
Over 98% of mass shootings are acts by white males.

Ban all white American men from having guns.

Could that happen? Yes, in theory as the US population is currently over 50% female.

JMO

Amendments can be repealed without "dissolving the Constitution." The 18th Amendment--Prohibition, was repealed with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933.

I don't see that happening with guns. Instead, passage of common sense gun controls such as Red Flag laws are already taking place. JMO

Twenty-first Amendment | Repeal, Prohibition, Ratification

Twenty-first Amendment, amendment (1933) to the Constitution of the United States that officially repealed federal prohibition, which had been enacted through the Eighteenth Amendment, adopted in 1919. The temperance movement was a strong force in U.S. politics in the early 20th century, enabling

www.britannica.com

 

[SouthAussie]

How do you know that you haven't? Australia reports that 4-5% of its population is violently assaulted every year (not counting murders). The US had about 500,000 violent assaults in 2020. That's less than 1%.

The 4.2% of victimisation crimes in Australia are actually .. (most recent stats July 2021-June 2022)

• 1.9% (386,000) who experienced physical assault
• 2.2% (441,900) who experienced face-to-face threatened assault
• 0.7% (133,700) who experienced non face-to-face threatened assault
• 0.3% (54,200) who experienced robbery
• 0.5% (94,400) who experienced sexual assault (persons aged 18 years and over)

I think that, overall, 'only' 1.9% are physical assaults of some nature, because their stats do not add up to their quoted 4.2%. Presumably robberies and sexual assaults are doubled up, counted separately and in physical assaults. There is some overlap there somewhere.


And all categories are decreasing, except sexual assault. Melt71 is correct that we are not seeing an increase in mass pencil stabbings (or any other kind of stabbings).

Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2022-23 financial year

National and state and territory crime rates for assault, threat, robbery, break-in, theft or stealing, property damage and police reporting rates.

www.abs.gov.au

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I’m not sure what you mean by the “masses” but it isn’t possible to simply pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist Or failed.
To get to anything resembling banning access to guns to ‘the masses’…
Those same masses would have to vote into office Senators and Representatives from all 50 states that support dissolving The United States Constitution, after each of those members of Congress had vowed to uphold The US Constitution.
Next the masses would have to vote into office a President that agreed- after he had been sworn into office by stating that he vows to upload The US Constitution.
Finally that President would have to be supported by all 12 Supreme Court Justices, appointed by past presidents, who take a lifetime oath to uphold The US Constitution.
Why does it take all three- because that is how the checks and balances works. The ultimate power lies in the Supreme Court to deem a law unconstitutional- and it is out.

Is there a way to overturn the 2nd Amendment, and that way not be ‘unconstitutional’? No.

If we want to make the most difference to save lives using math and common sense…

Over 40% of Americans are gun owners.
Over 98% of mass shootings are acts by white males.

Ban all white American men from having guns.

Could that happen? Yes, in theory as the US population is currently over 50% female.

JMO

Do you have a link that states over 98% of mass shootings are committed by white males? That is way off base in my opinion.

I started going through the listing of mass shootings on the gun violence archive website and soon realized that your data is way off.

Gun Violence Archive

www.gunviolencearchive.org

I also found this .

Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population

Mass shootings by shooter’s race in the U.S. 2024 | Statista

Between 1982 and June 2024, 81 out of the 150 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by White shooters.

www.statista.com

 

[AngTxGal]

Do you have a link that states over 98% of mass shootings are committed by white males? That is way off base in my opinion.

I started going through the listing of mass shootings on the gun violence archive website and soon realized that your data is way off.

Gun Violence Archive

www.gunviolencearchive.org

I also found this .

Race of mass shooters reflects the U.S. population

Mass shootings by shooter’s race in the U.S. 2024 | Statista

Between 1982 and June 2024, 81 out of the 150 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by White shooters.

www.statista.com

Does the 98% of mass shootings being by white males ring true? I think the Colorado Sun misquoted the stats- which say 98% of shootings are perpetrated by men.
Based on glancing, some likely lump Hispanic with white, some also consider high profile shootings, shootings with more deaths, over other shootings.

The stats depend on how you crunch the numbers, but the point is who are NOT mass shooters; inner city poor minorities acting out gang violence using a stolen hand gun

Mass shooters fly under the radar of LE and between the cracks of mental health help. They have an axe to grind or are mentally unstable, and the means to purchase the gun/s.

If we can agree on that description- then a solution to target that population makes sense.

Colorado Sun Op/Ed Apr 2023 Gun violence deaths in CO are largely white male

The map of the mass shootings in Colorado is a bit mind boggling as they are within 50 miles of one another, and other shootings in this area have happened since this map
Colorado map of mass shootings

So who are these shooters?
Politico- What Creates a Mass Shooter This article is researchers describing how to ID mass shooters for treatment

It would follow that gun control measures that would stop the trend of mass shootings would target the type of shooter, not the general gun owners.
Just as the Colorado article implies- the resistance may be in the fact that those in power more closely resemble the shooters?
Maybe white men are unwilling to limit guns to white males?
It is interesting to see what can be agreed upon in Colorado, and what cannot.
Colorado Gun Laws

JMO

 

[AngTxGal]

Amendments can be repealed without "dissolving the Constitution." The 18th Amendment--Prohibition, was repealed with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933.

I don't see that happening with guns. Instead, passage of common sense gun controls such as Red Flag laws are already taking place. JMO

Twenty-first Amendment | Repeal, Prohibition, Ratification

Twenty-first Amendment, amendment (1933) to the Constitution of the United States that officially repealed federal prohibition, which had been enacted through the Eighteenth Amendment, adopted in 1919. The temperance movement was a strong force in U.S. politics in the early 20th century, enabling

www.britannica.com

Yes, that is a route to abolish an Amendment. The Prohibition of Alcohol- 18th Amendment only lasted a few years, and was doomed to fail. It was not based in common sense.

Abolishing the 2nd Amendment would never garnish such support, which was the suggestion my last post was responding to. Americans use the phrase “it would take an act of Congress“ to describe tasks that are highly unlikely to impossible. It would take more.

RedFlag Laws, depending on how they are written and implemented literally and clearly are limitations to two Amendments to the US Constitution. This is why some states have not passed them. Some have mentioned a ‘federal red flag law’, which would be a violation of another two amendments.

2nd Amendment - the right to have and bear arms will not be infringed
4th Amendment- prevent against searches and seizures without due process (a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause)- because we are presumed innocent until proven guilty

10th Amendment- powers not given to the federal government is reserved for the states
14th Amendment- powers not given to the federal government is reserved for the states

I support
RedFlag Laws and believe if carefully written and enforced have the potential to reduce gun violence with many different causes. To me this is common sense, and as I’m not a violent person, nor am I mentally unstable, nor do I have dementia- it would have no impact on most law abiding gun owners. So, it has a chance.

JMO

 

[JennieM]

US woman arrested in Sydney with golden gun in luggage​

A US woman has been arrested in Australia after a 24-carat gold-plated gun was found in her luggage.

The woman, who has not been identified, arrived in Sydney from Los Angeles and did not have a permit for the firearm, the Australian Border Force (ABF) said.

She could face up to 10 years in jail.

[...]

Airline passengers on domestic flights in the US can travel with firearms in a checked bag when they are unloaded and locked in a hard-sided case. Travellers must also tell airline representatives that they intend to travel with the weapon during check-in.

But in 2022, record number of firearms was confiscated from US airport passengers. A total of 6,301 guns were taken at checkpoints as of mid-December, the transportation Security Administration (TSA) said.

By contrast, Australia has some of the most comprehensive firearm laws in the world. They were enacted after 35 people were killed in 1996 by a gunman in Tasmania.
In the wake of the attack, all automatic and semi-automatic weapons were outlawed, and some 600,000 weapons were surrendered as part of a mandatory government buyback scheme.

US woman arrested in Sydney with golden gun in luggage

The 24-carat gold-plated weapon was found in the woman's luggage after flying from Los Angeles.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, that is a route to abolish an Amendment. The Prohibition of Alcohol- 18th Amendment only lasted a few years, and was doomed to fail. It was not based in common sense.

Abolishing the 2nd Amendment would never garnish such support, which was the suggestion my last post was responding to. Americans use the phrase “it would take an act of Congress“ to describe tasks that are highly unlikely to impossible. It would take more.

RedFlag Laws, depending on how they are written and implemented literally and clearly are limitations to two Amendments to the US Constitution. This is why some states have not passed them. Some have mentioned a ‘federal red flag law’, which would be a violation of another two amendments.

2nd Amendment - the right to have and bear arms will not be infringed
4th Amendment- prevent against searches and seizures without due process (a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause)- because we are presumed innocent until proven guilty

10th Amendment- powers not given to the federal government is reserved for the states
14th Amendment- powers not given to the federal government is reserved for the states

I support
RedFlag Laws and believe if carefully written and enforced have the potential to reduce gun violence with many different causes. To me this is common sense, and as I’m not a violent person, nor am I mentally unstable, nor do I have dementia- it would have no impact on most law abiding gun owners. So, it has a chance.

JMO

Prohibition lasted 13 years and was passed by religious extremists and was ended by politicians with common sense.

States who refuse to pass common sense Red Flag laws have no excuse. There is due process just as there is due process in obtaining Orders of Protection. The removal of weapons from those deemed unstable is temporary until they can prove mental stability.

JMO

 

[AngTxGal]

Prohibition lasted 13 years and was passed by religious extremists and was ended by politicians with common sense.

States who refuse to pass common sense Red Flag laws have no excuse. There is due process just as there is due process in obtaining Orders of Protection. The removal of weapons from those deemed unstable is temporary until they can prove mental stability.

JMO

I agree that RedFlag laws seem common sense, but the devil is always in the details and a law passed doesn’t mean it will be implemented/ enforced as effectively as thought.
The key would be who determines if a person is violent or mentally unstable to the degree that their guns are taken away?

Yes I think they could be effective, in theory. It is possible RedFlag laws could prevent some people from getting guns who should not? Yes.
Do I think it is a solution? No. I think mass shootings is a symptom and not the problem.

We must agree that something is different today as compared to the past.
What is it? It cannot be that gun availability has change healthy young men into murderers.
I don‘t buy that. Where are we failing our sons?

JMO