Why pass new gun laws when we don't enforce existing laws?

[dneal]

Biden Lays Blame for Uvalde School Shooting on Gun Lobby

There's still much that's unknown about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman has reportedly killed at least 19 children and three adults at an elementary school. President Joe Biden nevertheless gave a brief post-shooting speech in which he endorsed the passage of new gun control legislation as a means of preventing similar tragic events.

"When in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?" said an emotional Biden from the White House Tuesday night. "When in God's name are we going to do what we know needs to be done?"

Well, we could start by enforcing existing laws, so yes - When in God's name are going to do what needs to be done? One example the current administration should be familiar with is the case of a particular Hunter Biden.

Young Biden received a waiver in 2012 for age (I'm sure his dad being the sitting Vice President didn't affect that at all), and was commissioned in the Navy Reserve. He subsequently received an administrative discharge for drug use - testing positive for cocaine. NBC News Link

Anyone who has purchased a firearm in the last couple of decades should be familiar with ATF form 4473. It has quite a few questions one must answer, and clearly states:

I certify that my answers in Section B are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 21.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law,
and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 21.b. through 21.k. is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 21.l.1. is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm, unless the person answers “yes” to question 21.l.2. and provides the documentation required in 26.d. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of Federal law.

So let's review some of these questions.

21c, for example, asks:

Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?

Wait, didn't Hunter get kicked out of the Navy for cocaine use? Is there an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice about that?

UCMJ Article 112a:

e. Maximum punishments.
(1) Wrongful use, possession, manufacture, or introduction of controlled substance.
( a ) Amphetamine , cocaine , heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide, marijuana (except possession of less than 30 grams or use of marijuana), methamphetamine, opium, phencyclidine, secobarbital, and Schedule I, II, III controlled substances. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement 5 years.

I'm not a lawyer, and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I believe this crime is punishable for more than the year mentioned in the ATF form. Oh, that's right, Hunter wasn't charged with a crime. He merely received an administrative discharge. Reuters clarifies this in their "fact check". He received an administrative discharge - which we don't know the character of. Question 21g asks:

Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

So maybe his answer was not false, and he didn't violate Federal law. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. That 2014 apparently not-dishonorable administrative discharge he received in lieu of a criminal charge was a close call. I'm sure that didn't have anything to do with his father still being the Vice President though.

But then we get to question 21e:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

Hmmm. Here things get a little sticky. Hunter describes his crack addiction in his memoir. He tested positive for cocaine and received a discharge. Yet Politico reports he purchased a gun on 12 October 2018.

Yes Mr. President, when in God's name are we going to do what needs to be done?

[Lloyd]

So, by going after Hunter the problem will be solved? Great! I don't support Hunter getting treated this way nor do I support most nepotism from any of our current nor past leaders. However, I think you're smart enough, and hopefully not too biased, to know that taking away Hunter's guns does literally nothing toward fixing the system.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[dneal]

You have to start somewhere. Is the President committed to the rule of law? Or is he just a politician saying politically expedient things. Here’s an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.

The point remains. Why clamor for new laws when we’re not going to enforce existing laws. We should pass a law that forbids possession of firearms on or near a school. We should pass a law to make it illegal to shoot up a school. Then it won’t happen anymore. Right?

Gun ownership remains relatively constant, but mass school shootings like we see today didn’t start until Columbine (with a couple of exceptions - the Austin campus being one). What other variables are we not accounting for?

If the go-to solution is to simply pass a law to ban scary looking rifles (when equivalent but less scary rifles will remain unaffected), harrumph and dust our hands as we admire our new law (like gun free zone schools), we’re not going to solve anything. Demonizing the gun lobby is even more ineffectual.

[Lloyd]

dneal - your second paragraph is a great entry in my eyes. I fully agree. While I'm not a supporter of the currently used meaning of the 2nd (even with Heller's statement), I agree that coming up with a way of enforcing the current laws would be a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

This is something I have considered, if I owned one of these assault rifles and felt it was my right, then I saw what a deranged person could do to 19 10 year old's and their teachers, I would gladly hand it over for destruction as they have in other nations. My rights are not more important than these innocents. This is a paramount demonstration of morals and character to say that others are more important than my pleasures.

And, any discussion about Hunter is what-about-this-ism.

[dneal]

Whataboutism - noun
- A rhetorical device used to deflect from demonstrable hypocrisy.

See also: Smokescreen, Red Herring

[Chuck Naill]

No, It introducing something that has no place in the discussion. It would be like me bringing up your vaccine and voting history to suggest your opinions about guns is not valid.

[dneal]

No, It introducing something that has no place in the discussion. It would be like me bringing up your vaccine and voting history to suggest your opinions about guns is not valid.

Quoting for posterity. Your hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in this post is quite an accomplishment - even for you. Well done.

[Chuck Naill]

I applaud your uncanny ability to say nothing of relevance. Carry on…lol!

[dneal]

I applaud your uncanny ability to say nothing of relevance. Carry on…lol!

And you continue to outdo yourself. Amazing.

Does your post 5 address the topic I started of enforcing existing gun laws? Does it address proposing new gun laws? Or is it you again hypocritically demonstrating the very thing you are whining about?

How about post 7?

“Don’t be Chuck”, indeed.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve addressed gun laws and regards. Introducing Biden or his son is “what about this “ and prevents any meaningful discussion.

[Chuck Naill]

I’ll say this, Biden knows how to consider the suffering of others. Even if he’s just pretending, he sure puts on a good show.

[dneal]

Post #12 has what exactly to do with the topic?

Chuck, we know what your "meaningful discussion" is.

"Ban masks but not assault rifles…….lol! 🤫😂"

"The addiction is to a cowboy white male myth. It never did exist. John Wayne’s role wasn’t a real person……"

"I find it sad or laughable that a doctor doesn’t support basic infection control, quotes the Bible, is unable to consider that an 18 year old with an assault rifle is the definition freedom, and has no regard for slaughtering 10 year old and their teachers. So much for being pro life."

Please show me just one post where you formulate and present a point, like my reply in your massacre thread.

Yes, you said it's hard. I said it's not. Getting into detail on why is not prudent.

I'm not sure precisely what the issue is you're trying to reduce. I'll assume school shootings. Despite the media sensationalism, it's actually not that frequent. Calculate the number of schools, multiplied by the number of average days in a school year, for a simple denominator; and use events as the numerator.

It has increased significantly since the mid 90's, and although there are numerous resources Wikipedia's is useful because the data is in a table you can sort. Before 2000 and 21st Century.

Initially the increase appears to be related to gang violence, but with Columbine it changes. The question is: why? Household gun ownership has remained relatively constant - around 40%. Most studies measure from the 70's or 80's to the present. Availability doesn't appear to be a correlating factor. You could even buy new production, fully automatic weapons up until 1986 - and no one was shooting up schools with machine guns. Gun control schemes appear to be addressing a variable that isn't a root cause and is likely to have little effect (like "gun-free zones"), because the people that follow these laws aren't the ones shooting up schools or other places. Conversely, two places that have statistically no mass shootings are gun stores and gun shows.

The opposite of gun-restriction notions are things like allowing school personnel to be armed, and I think there is some objective merit - but that discussion gets ridiculed by one side just as gun control notions get ridiculed by the other. This topic is as (if not more) contentious as abortion.

I am focused on root cause, and have been looking at it since I was a psychology undergrad listening to one professor, whose expertise was psychopharmacology, rail on over-diagnosis of ADHD and over-prescription of psychotropics.

Since the mid 80s, the DSM III R and DSM IV greatly expanded the number and type of "disorders", with very questionable diagnostic criteria (the DSM 5 raises those issues and attempts to correct). New antidepressants and anti anxiety medications also were developed (SSRIs, for example) in the mid 80s. Essentially, we started diagnosing and drugging our children. Look at the ADHD rates in the U.S. compared to other western nations, and treatment. That begins around age 8-10. Other psychotropics are introduced around 12-14. In the mid 90s, the Columbines begin.

Unless something has changed recently, we can't test for "chemical imbalances" of neurotransmitters like we do for insulin; yet clinicians assert behavioral or mental problems are due to these. Prescriptions that alter serotonin, dopamine, etc... are given based on self-reporting.

These mass-shooting incidents are a wicked problem with decades of societal and technological variables we haven't begun to account for except in the most superficial ways. We have been messing around with brain chemistry in children, and it incidentally correlates very closely with the rise of random shootings. It's a reasonable place to investigate, and one we seem to refuse to for a variety of reasons.

[Chuck Naill]

You made no meaningful posts. You just wanted to redefine the Second Amendment.

Regulating who can purchase an assault rifle is easy, require training and certification. Require a waiting period and background check.

Regulation ammunition is also easy to do.

Neither takes away anyones true right to enjoy firearms. And it offers the original intent to be able to defend the community.

[Lloyd]

Chuck - Please stop defending yourself. Stay to the topic.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck - Please stop defending yourself. Stay to the topic.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My bad….🤭

[Chuck Naill]

There is no federal law requiring background evaluations. It’s stalled by the Republicans.

[TSherbs]

Why pass new laws? Because most mass killers buy their guns legally. The laws suck.

Summary of the gun sources for the biggest killing sprees over the last 10 years:

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-sc...5464970a225b2d

[TSherbs]

There is no federal law requiring background evaluations. It’s stalled by the Republicans.

vile cowards

[Chuck Naill]

There is no federal law requiring background evaluations. It’s stalled by the Republicans.

vile cowards

It will take the Cowboy Myth Movement Conservatives to say, “enough, we are going do without so others can live”.