Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Grand Compromise on Crime, Mental Health and Guns

—

by

sherlockj
in

by James C. Sherlock

Had enough?

People organize into governments first for their collective protection. Virginians are not sufficiently protected from violence.

The mass shootings of the past couple of weeks in Virginia offer an impetus to strike a grand bargain on public safety.

Staying in corners waiting for control of all three branches of government to turn favored changes into law is a forfeit by public officials of their obligations to society.

For public confidence in the deal and its long term survival, as many as possible of its provisions will need to be packaged as a single compromise with the support of the governor and the leadership of both parties in the General Assembly.

The concepts I offer attempt to mitigate:

  1. The mass killings that we continue to experience, crimes that are committed in significant number by the mentally ill;
  2. The possession or use of deadly weapons in the commission of crimes;
  3. Unacceptable numbers of deaths from fentanyl;
  4. The number of illegal guns and the numbers of legal guns bought illegally;
  5. Gun modifications to increase their rates of fire; and
  6. Transfers of firearms without background checks.

I offer the following elements for consideration in a grand compromise.

  • Increase sentences and mandate prosecutions for the use or possession of deadly weapons in the commission of crimes. Treat the possession or use of weapons in crimes as offenses separate from the underlying crimes; and make 16 the age for automatic trial as an adult in weapons crimes;
  • Combine the Governor’s increased budget proposal for mental health with a strengthening of involuntary commitment laws;
  • Treat the distribution and sale of fentanyl as Class 1 felonies;
  • Increase penalties for the manufacture, sale, transport and possession of illegal weapons;
  • Increase penalties for possession, acquisition and transport of weapons acquired illegally;
  • Make illegal the sale or possession of weapons not commercially sold by licensed dealers with exceptions for antique weapons and weapons permanently disabled from firing;
  • Make illegal the possession or sale of any items for modification of a manufacturer’s designed rate of fire. This would include binary triggers, bump stocks and any other such device;
  • Mandate background checks for the public or private transfer or sale of any firearm;
  • Mandate secure storage of firearms in any dwelling in which minors are housed;
  • Inspect all public schools, colleges, universities and government workplaces annually for compliance with state laws on safety, including threat assessments and preventive actions;
  • Re-consider the extent to which the records of juveniles on gun offenses and mental health issues are sealed from background checks by law enforcement; and
  • Improve the protections for both the public and individuals offered by red-flag laws.

There will need to be language to ensure prosecutions for the crimes listed above in order to allay the fears of political decisions by some Commonwealth Attorneys.

Bottom line. Both sides need to get over their respective hopes or fears for a widespread confiscation of guns.

Not going to happen.

Even with a constitutional amendment, which has no chance of passing in the lifetime of anyone reading this, the confiscation itself would prove untenable.

Who, exactly, would confiscate 400 million guns? It isn’t going to be your local sheriff. A federal door-to-door gun confiscation corps? We cannot even fill the ranks of the Army. If we can throw water on the concept of confiscation and spread the wet ashes, we can make headway.

My ideas on the contents of a compromise have of course no special status. Better ideas are certainly out there and always welcome as long as there is sufficient balance to make the package a true compromise.

I think we know what the extremes of both sides of the national divide will object to in my purely notional list above.

I don’t care.

We have no choice but to improve public safety and security. Such a package is not feasible this year due to time constraints, but get one ready for next year. It should take hearings and might take a special session of the General Assembly to provide proper focus.

A true compromise on current left/right positions is the only way I see to get there and have the solutions last.

We must.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

70 responses to “A Grand Compromise on Crime, Mental Health and Guns”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Good concept. Not divisive. Will not make sense to politicians. Unfortunate.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      Some of these make zero sense to gun owners. We can tell you where the issues are but culture and education are NEVER on this list. That’s #1 issue right there. People who don’t understand guns, refuse to talk to us BEFORE they make up these rules. That is a huge part of the reason why there is so much backlash.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Guns are simple things. People are complex.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          as are drugs…

        2. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Guns are simple…

          No, they are not. I would have thought last week’s discussions would have made you realize that.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            But straight forward enough that people have legally made them for themselves since 1607. Sherlock opposes that too.

  2. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    #1 – change age from 16 to 13. You don’t know crime starts early. Earlier than this.
    #2 – where are you going to put people & for how long? What do you have to ensure this won’t be abused (because ERPO laws have been A LOT and have done next to nothing for anything because they do NOT fix the problem).
    #4 & 5 – make mandatory tough minimums that progressive judges can’t get out of because of any type of “justice”
    #6 – problem is, licensed dealers only sell certain weapons. Case in point: IWI is not a widely sold one in stores but it is at gun shows, etc. You also have ruled out kits and builds – and you’ll see lawsuits up the wazoo on that.
    #7 – No to bump stocks. Yes to *any* device that moves semi auto to auto without registration w/local cops.
    #8 – believe we already have that in Va. Consider this – those of you who don’t know something about the gun world. If a firearm you have (serial #’s are on a lot of them) gets caught in a crime, guess who they’re coming after? So I would do a background check and can have FFL’s do one. So you want to make sure that any trace of the serial # is not to you but the new owner. This is why this is self correcting in many ways.
    #9 – I would not go for this because this, like all ‘requirements’, hurts lower income folks. Those are the ones who get socked for $50 fees because some jerk cities/counties haven’t removed the $35 CCL charges for fingerprinting. Its been taken out of the law for a few years, move it down to $15 like a # of cities are doing. The cost of something like this is NOT cheap. You don’t see tons of kids killing themselves because many do not know where the firearms are kept, or like a ton of us, know better than to touch them. Some also have you learn by cleaning them, taking them apart, etc. You can have a kid do that safely and learn something.
    #10 – Gun free zones = victim murder zones. Learned that with building 2.
    Lastly there is no way in hell, heaven, this earth and the 4 winds that ANY red flag law should be in place. Ever. Folks who don’t understand ERPO’s use this and its total crap and a violation of the 2A.

    The ones who need to make the laws are those who *KNOW* about guns, gun stuff, and study the research.

    1. James Kiser Avatar
      James Kiser

      all firearms at shows require a background check whether sold by a dealer or a private sale. State police are at every show to do these checks. Every show I have been at in the last year have signs up saying if caught selling firearms in the parking lot will result in a arrest.

      1. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        I’ve never seen those signs at any show I’ve been too. I go to them all the time.

        1. James Kiser Avatar
          James Kiser

          They were posted at the shows in Harrisonburg and Fishersville.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yeah, we have gun shows in Fredericksburg and I see people in the parking lot with open trunks all the time and I also don’t see signs.

            And if this happens in a place like Fredericksburg, I’m pretty sure it happens out in rural Virginia also.

            But not sure why this is a question if we look at how mass murderers get their guns. Two things seem to be true:

            1. – they often get the guns right before the murders.

            2.- they often buy them from gun dealers after passing successful background checks.

            Beyond 1 and 2 – they often purchase weapons with magazines and extra magazines, etc.

            If we did a demographic survey of all mass murders, would we see some things in common? If we did and we focused on those things would that be unconstitutional per se since SCOTUS has said that guns CAN be regulated!

            There are actually already a lot of regulation but just like other regulation – the circumstances evolve and the regulations fall behind.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the parking lot thing. If there actually is a sign and cops looking.. what keeps two folks from agreeing to take a short drive over to WalMart or McDonalds and do the deed?

            Is it illegal to sell guns privately? Is it illegal from someone to purchase a gun without a background check no matter who they buy it from? Do we enforce that laws or would we?

          3. vicnicholls Avatar
            vicnicholls

            Not any where in HR or RVA. I’ll see if they’re posted in NoVa end of next month.

  3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Provide for an income tax credit for anyone who purchases a gun and that takes gun safety lessons. Make the lessons free after the tax credit.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      I bow low, I went all the way thru advanced handgun, carbine, practice classes, oh yes I’d LOVE for someone to pay for those!! Aint cheap!

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        If we want people to take classes, make ’em free or at least very cheap. A better use for tax dollars than paying climate reparations or forgiving student loans.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          are we training them to aim better?

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Larry, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. There have been many arguments that people should have some training when they purchase a firearm. I’m suggesting a way that could increase the number of purchasers who do so.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Recruiting advertisement: join the military. Classes, individual instruction, weapons, ammo and competitions will be free.

        1. vicnicholls Avatar
          vicnicholls

          Not everyone is eligible.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Nor is membership in a governmental institution an appropriate restriction on a Constitutional right.

  4. Thomas Dixon Avatar
    Thomas Dixon

    Too many car accidents. We must make them softer and control who and how many people get them.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      And adopt a national 25 mph speed limit…

  5. wa6ilt Avatar
    wa6ilt

    Sigh. We don’t enforce the gun laws already on the books. Offenders are routinely allowed to plead down to lesser charges and serve little or no jail time. Enforce the laws we have and sentence people who violate them to the maximum penalties before coming up with new laws. Many of the mass shootings are committed by people who should have been in the NICS system but slipped through the cracks and their data was never entered. Many others had numerous contacts with the police or social services and should have been flagged as dangerous and taken off the streets but were not. In many instances the firearm was obtained illegally. All of these situations show the futility of background checks. In addition the 24 states (25 as of the first of the year) that have permit-less carry have not become the foretold bloodbaths of the opposition, and in fact many of them have lower than average violent crime rates. The numbers of bump stocks (now banned, and challenges are failing) and binary triggers extent are minuscule compared to the number of firearms out there, and basically irrelevant in any shooting situation. Can the writer name one instance when either has proven to be a factor in a mass shooting? The Las Vegas shooter was supposed to have one or more bump stocks, but the crime scene footage and forensic findings have never been released, so how do we know? Lastly, if firearms become unavailable, other means will be used. The deadliest school killing was done with explosives in 1927. The Oklahoma City bombing (using fertilizer, diesel fuel, and a rental truck) took 168 lives and injured more than 600. I didn’t hear any cries to regulate any of those things after the bombing. Lately killers have taken to driving cars and trucks through parades and other crowds. A couple of things the writer says make sense. Schools need to be hardened against attack, but that doesn’t guarantee protection. The Uvalde shooting was made possible by a teacher stupidly propping open what was supposed to be a secure door. Gun free zones are murder zones, pure and simple. States that allow teachers and staff to be armed, even if none of them choose to do so, create a deterrent to shooters because the would-be assassin is no long certain the environment is safe. States that allow armed staff, like Utah, have not had school shootings.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      1. The propped open door rumor at Uvalde was later debunked. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/31/uvalde-teacher-closed-a-propped-open-door-before-school-shooting-police-reportedly-find-contradicting-earlier-claims/#:~:text=An%20elementary%20school%20teacher%20in%20Uvalde%2C%20Texas%2C%20who,because%20a%20teacher%20had%20left%20a%20door%20ajar.
      2. I believe I advocated that language would need to be put in these and existing laws to ensure CAs prosecute.
      3. The UVa alleged shooter was found to have purchased two guns in a check by the UVa police, but the TAT did nothing. He had previously been denied the purchase of a gun because of a background check. Background checks worked in both cases. The UVa TAT did not.
      4. The UVa shooter had a binary trigger. “The writer” does not care if one has been used in a mass shooting. The only purpose for a binary trigger is to increase the rate of fire. The only reason to increase the rate of fire is to shoot people, not game. And if you miss on the pull, you miss on the release.
      5. We do not have laws making transport or sale of fentanyl a Class 1 felony. That should deter the bulk of the imports of that poison.
      6. How about … fertilizer? Really?
      7. Involuntary commitment laws are too stringent to allow mental health providers to do their jobs. We don’t have enough facilities and staff to house and treat dangerously mentally ill people. I understand that the governor’s budget proposal will help mitigate that.
      8. Illegally procured guns and illegal guns are too common. Clearly the laws are not strict enough to deter.
      9. I purposely did not purpose anything that can be construed as in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. You do not contend that I did so. So we are talking about differences of opinion, not rights violations.

      1. wa6ilt Avatar
        wa6ilt

        Actually, I think we are talking about 2A violations. To begin with, using the Buren test, at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified there were firearms that would fire multiple projectiles with one trigger pull and ones at least one that was an early version of an automatic weapon. And your remarks about the UVA shooter simply prove the ineffectiveness of background checks. I noticed you made no rebuttal concerning the states with permitlesd carry, or that states which allow armed staff do not have school shootings. In point of fact in those places where college students are now allowed to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear atms,not only has the predicted bloodbath not taken place but at least one and probably more mass shootings have been stopped. And if you aren’t aware that nitride fertilizer and diesel fuel can be combined to make a potent explosive, your ignorance is of such a degree that I will no longer deal with you. Goodbye.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Of course I know about the Oklahoma bombing. I simply suggest that we will ban neither diesel nor fertilizer.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      1. The propped open door rumor at Uvalde was later debunked. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/31/uvalde-teacher-closed-a-propped-open-door-before-school-shooting-police-reportedly-find-contradicting-earlier-claims/#:~:text=An%20elementary%20school%20teacher%20in%20Uvalde%2C%20Texas%2C%20who,because%20a%20teacher%20had%20left%20a%20door%20ajar.
      2. I believe I advocated that language would need to be put in these and existing laws to ensure CAs prosecute.
      3. The UVa alleged shooter was found to have purchased two guns in a check by the UVa police, but the TAT did nothing. He had previously been denied the purchase of a gun because of a background check. Background checks worked in both cases. The UVa TAT did not.
      4. The UVa shooter had a binary trigger. “The writer” does not care if one has been used in a mass shooting. The only purpose for a binary trigger is to increase the rate of fire. The only reason to increase the rate of fire is to shoot people, not game. And if you miss on the pull, you miss on the release.
      5. We do not have laws making transport or sale of fentanyl a Class 1 felony. That should deter the bulk of the imports of that poison.
      6. How about … fertilizer? Really?
      7. Involuntary commitment laws are too stringent to allow mental health providers to do their jobs. We don’t have enough facilities and staff to house and treat dangerously mentally ill people. I understand that the governor’s budget proposal will help mitigate that.
      8. Illegally procured guns and illegal guns are too common. Clearly the laws are not strict enough to deter.
      9. I purposely did not purpose anything that can be construed as in conflict with the 2nd Amendment. You do not contend that I did so. So we are talking about differences of opinion, not rights violations.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I don’t think most folks who want gun control want confiscation of existing. They’re willing to grandfather and let things change over time. Many, if not most mass killers get their weapons shortly before the killing.

    We’re not going to stop mass killings altogether anyhow. People know that.

    On the left, there is a LOT of room for compromises. They’ll take what they can get. On the right, not so much because even if some on the right might compromise, others will not and so on the right – there will be such calls for compromise as we can see.

    Finally, all the calls for enforcing the laws … at the same time the same folks are saying the killers are mentally ill.

    Do we really think stricter laws will dissuade the mentally ill?

    Other countries have approaches that seem to work, but, again, in this country, on the right, any thought of considering what other counties do is off the table.

    You can’t have a Grand Compromise when one side will not compromise at all..

  7. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    We do have one finding in the national news from the recent Walmart shooting, that Virginia does not have a holding period.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      Absolutely no waiting periods. This happens more than you know – why should someone live in fear because of ONE problem guy? https://concealednation.org/2015/06/woman-murdered-by-convicted-felon-while-waiting-for-her-concealed-carry-permit/ “None of it was enough, and her permit to legally carry a firearm was still pending. Bowne was stabbed to death in her own driveway Wednesday night by the very man that the courts couldn’t protect her from.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/66-year-old-woman-husband-play-waiting-game-to-get-concealed-carry-permits/ar-AA12R9kf or these folks.

    2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      The solution could be to treat access to abortion and access to a firearm purchase the same. I believe that a number of states have some type of waiting period before a woman can have an abortion. If that’s constitutional, so too is the same waiting period to purchase a firearm.

      I’m not sure how one could enforce this, but a requirement to treat both similarly would force compromise on both issues, where we could protect basic access to both and, perhaps, be able to move on.

  8. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Compromise? That requires genuine give and take. Not happening anytime soon.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Not a single proposal from the Dems is acceptable to the GOP … AND not a single proposal or counter-proposal on gun control is offered by the GOP.

      And we talk of “Grand Compromise”

      Lordy.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I nominate Senator Lucas as moderator. Most even keeled person at Capitol Square.

        1. vicnicholls Avatar
          vicnicholls

          That woman outed her own daughter. I chewed her on Twitter for that crap.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          we exclude the extremists on both sides and see what’s left on the right that’s willing to make proposals with the others on the left.

          nothing there.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Not a single proposal from the Dems is acceptable to the GOP … AND not a single proposal or counter-proposal on gun control is offered by the GOP.

      And we talk of “Grand Compromise”

      Lordy.

  9. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act insulates manufacturers from liability by restricting the right to sue in common law tort. In effect, manufacturers have received a pass of responsibility to the safety of society. A VA statute could restore citizen rights for suit, for example negligent marketing as employed by the Sandy Hook parents. Consideration of liability insurance measures to recover public costs and/or victim compensation should be added.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      It’s another Jim McCarthy silly walk. Way to go. Proposing a requirement of insurance to exercise Constitutional rights is especially silly. Good thing you didn’t choose law as a profession.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      That is a not very stealthy stalking horse for suing the small companies that make firearms out of business, as well you know. Try not assuming others are idiots.

    3. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      The PLCA does not need to be modified or repealed.

      IN fact, as far as I am concerned, every manufacturer of every product in the country should have the same protection offered gun manufacturers by the PLCA: Protection from being sued out of existence because someone used their product for illegal purposes.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    To address the Fentanyl issue. Over the years, different “flavors” of drugs have become the focus of “crime” to include opium and heroin and cocaine to name a few.

    So it’s not about a particular “flavor” of drugs like fentanyl IMO and we ought to take that specific word out of the “proposal” and replace it with a word that fairly represents that kind/type of drug in general, because some day, fentanyl will be replaced by some newer variant.

    So what do we REALLY want for the Grand Compromise drug proposal? Can it be written in a more general way so that it applies to any/all drugs LIKE heroin/cocaine/fentanyl/etc ?

    What is it we are actually trying to accomplish with that part of the proposal?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I did not try to craft specific laws for the one line proposals, Larry. Just seed corn.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        then don’t target specific drugs when we know that drugs evolve over time. Talk about the class of drugs perhaps.

        What is it about Fentanyl that makes it a criminal issue any more or less than other drugs like Cocaine or Oxycontin?

  11. Cassie Gentry Avatar
    Cassie Gentry

    Jail time for theft and violence. No more suspended sentences and no probation. Always confinement. All gun crimes and murders committed by juveniles over 13 to be prosecuted as adults. No sealed records for juveniles convicted of felonies. These and other things would help. Laws without enforcement are simply advice, which people are free to ignore, and they do.

  12. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    As an abstract proposition, I agree with Sherlock’s argument that we need a grand comprise, which means people will have to make concessions they don’t want to make to get it. But enough is enough. We cannot go on as we have.

    My starting point would be to enforce the laws we already have. The governing class has a propensity to pass new laws, even when existing laws are ignored and improperly administered.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      No – the gun laws we have go after law abiding citizens Jim, they do NOT go after the criminals. In Va the D’s wrote these laws. There is nothing that addresses culture and education. Those 2 items right there, given the Japanese cleaning of their areas in FIFA stadiums and the players doing so in their locker rooms, show there are other ways to resolve the issue than the poop we have now. Remember Chicago and NYC are not crime free.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Make your own list of what to do to reduce mass violence and post it Vic.

        1. vicnicholls Avatar
          vicnicholls

          Few simple ones: if you commit a crime (robbery, car theft, rape, etc.) with a firearm/weapon, automatic 2 years for first offense added to your time. If you do it a 2nd time, 5 years. Any juvenile from age 13 to 18, crimes w/firearms stays on your record forever. No wiping out stuff. Basically what Cassie Gentry said above. Get rid of ERPO’s and if someone feels that you are an issue, better to check them out for a 24 hour hold. It makes 0 sense to just take guns away and leave them. Also, false or retalitory ERPO’s nets jail time and a $1K fine. I didn’t pick on all Jim’s items. The ones’ I didn’t, worth doing. In education: start enforcing discipline in the classrooms and truancy? If you don’t show up, report them to court. Chesapeake does a pretty good job of this. Make sure kids can read. If they can’t by the 3rd grade, they’re fodder for the criminal justice system. Get rid of porn and all other garbage in the system, spend that time on teaching kids relationships, positive relationships, how to solve problems, and work together. Start putting kids early into hands on working on projects – building shelves, basic stuff, so that their minds are engaged and used to working with their hands. Learning to solve how something works engages their minds and teaches problem solving. This all should be started K5 or earlier. If the parents are part of the problem, well they wanted social workers, this is what they’re for.

          Most of all: stop glorifying death and murder.

    2. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      JB: “But enough is enough. We cannot go on as we have.”

      Wanted there to be a silver bullet won’t make it so.

      “Despite the recent growth in mass public shootings, the infrequency with which they occur makes it very challenging to develop broad measures that will reduce their incidence or severity. It may therefore be more effective to focus on strategies that that have shown promise in decreasing violence in general.”

      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12478

  13. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Members of the General Assembly won’t get serious about such a grand compromise and taking steps to enforcement of existing laws until we the voters send a strong message to our representatives that we expect serious action.
    As the former Senate minority leader, Everett Dirksen, once said, “when I feel the heat, I see the light’”

  14. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    There are some elements of Sherlock’s proposal that are reasonable and that I have consistently advocated on BR.

    But, all proposals dealing with guns are restrictions. If this is a “compromise” why are there no proposals that increase the rights of gun owners?

    If the idea is reduced rights versus no rights that ain’t much of a “compromise”. It’s more “common sense” abridgements of the Constitution BS in drag.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      If any law abridges the constitution, it will be voided. So that cannot be a reasonable concern.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        You’ve got some good and useful items. I encourage you to stick to those. Again, it ain’t a compromise if all the changes restrict rights.

  15. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    After the fact of a mass murder, I do like to see on the News who did it and why. But when we allow the murderer to give his or her manifesto blaming wrongdoing of others (who are now dead) this is wrong. I had an acquaintance in NJ murdered, and the serial killer claimed he had been molested years ago by my acquaintance, which seems to be have been complete hogwash, yet that is what the international news media was told by the NJ County/lawyers. In reality the murderer needed a car to flee.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      I’m sorry NEF.

  16. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    Perfectly sane people commit crimes, including murder. The public schools teach their form of morality: support gender identity, have sex in conformance with FLE teachings, don’t harass, don’t be racist, etc. If the schools think they can teach morality, why don’t they try to teach that shooting (innocent) people is wrong? I realize that, without an inescapable punishment, the schools have a tough time convincing people to be good citizens. Maybe they should restore the Ten Commandments, the joys of heaven, and the fear of hell to the school curriculum.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I agree, but not going to happen, at least as public policy, in public schools. We are left to hope kids get lessons in morality at home, and from public school teachers individually.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” Perfectly sane people commit crimes”.

      okay. can we say also: ” Perfectly sane people commit Mass murders”?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “Actually, psychopaths are quite sane.”

        “Psychopathy is a personality disorder, not a mental disorder. Hallucinations and other signs of mental illness usually portrayed as part of psychopathy are actually severe psychosis, or a loss of one’s sense of reality.”

        https://www.insider.com/pop-culture-misconceptions-about-psychopaths-sociopaths-2016-8#3-psychopaths-arent-crazy-3

        Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded or injured almost 900. I’m not aware of any evidence that he was mentality ill.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          so how would you deal with issue in the context of people who kill bunches of others in one event?

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            There’s no magic bullet, nor one size fits all.

            For UVA, I think Mr. Sherlock has done an admirable job researching information that is publicly available. At this point, I would recommend waiting for the investigation report before suggesting legislative changes. In the interim, I would suggest that colleges and universities make sure that serious tips and complaints aren’t languishing in a bureaucratic maze.

            For the Walmart shooting, I have yet to see any evidence of negligence or something that would have changed the outcome.

            It has been suggested in another article that the public outcry against the 2020 gun control agenda prevented someone from reporting the Walmart shooter and using Red Flag laws to take action. I’ve not seen any evidence to support that.

      2. Fred Costello Avatar
        Fred Costello

        Yes, perfectly sane people commit mass murders. A sane person, who is unhappy with life and expecting no afterlife, might want to commit suicide and decide to take as many people with him as possible. If there is no afterlife, why not?

  17. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    Grand Compromise? Been there, done that. Didn’t work.

    Such an agreement would require both parties to act in good faith and follow through with their commitments.

    Ever heard of Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986? It was marketed as amnesty for those already here illegally in return for tight security on the border and strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers. The amnesty happened. The border security and crackdown didn’t. Illegal border crossings have never been higher than currently, and with them come drugs, gangs etc.

    After decades of falling crime rates, the current trend among Progressives is to do away with strict enforcement, cash bail and incarceration. This will not end well.

  18. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Some of us remember how our response to drunk driving evolved. Cars don’t kill people. People do but they do it with cars so the law said you can’t drive drunk but we still insisted calling them accidents until enough outrage came along with groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving that we actually did do more. We changed enforcement and we changed laws and regulations and not without constitutional challenges about giving breath tests.

    And this is what happened:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6aa7a35220fc04bf34fa8cab6a8dae304bbf6566fec233b048bd7316faf94395.jpg

    We did not STOP it. That was never the intent nor expectation and it’s not with mass murders either.

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Gun ownership has been a prominent part of our heritage from the founding. Additionally, mass shootings of innocent people were less common years ago when gun laws were far more relaxed. What changed?

      Laws regarding drunk driving may have helped improve fatalities, but the largest impact resulted from the change in public attitudes. Over time, it became less socially acceptable to drive while intoxicated, with the primary focus on the perpetrator.

      Beginning with Columbine, a most bizarre and destructive change occurred throughout the country. No longer were the perpetrators solely responsible for their actions. From that point on, responsibility, hatred and anger focused more on others than the perpetrators themselves.

      I remember shortly after Columbine, a co-worker quoted a student who stated: “We all had a finger on that trigger.” (collective responsibility) Because the shooters were picked on at school, that somehow shifted responsibility for mass murder onto the victims.

      Today, even before any facts come to light, celebrities and the news media begin to focus blame for the act on innocent law abiding citizens completely unconnected with the incident – anyone who opposes their gun control agenda.

      The collective psyche of the country has changed over the last few decades such that lashing out with violence is more accepted for perceived grievances. That’s what changed, and any solution which fails to address the root cause will fail.

      The shooters at UVA and Walmart had one thing in common – perceived grievances.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        why just the US and we can do something about drunk driving but not mass killings?

        you said: ” violence against innocent people is more accepted for perceived grievances.”

        one or one or mass groups?

        we’re “okay” with this – collectively?

        are you listening to what all folks are saying, not just some?

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          “Why just the US?”

          I’m focused on the US because that’s where I live.

          My comment about the acceptance of violence for perceived grievances was intended to mean in in general, not limited to mass shootings. Sorry if that was not clear.

          People are not “okay” with mass shootings, but very little anger and vitriol is directed at the perpetrator. If I’m wrong in that, perhaps you can show me a clip from whatever news source you watch showing celebrities or newscasters with anger and hatred directed toward the perpetrator.

  19. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Make illegal the sale or possession of weapons not commercially sold by licensed dealers with exceptions for antique weapons and weapons permanently disabled from firing;

    Would that mean I could not leave my firearms collection to my children when I die?

    Make illegal the possession or sale of any items for modification of a manufacturer’s designed rate of fire. This would include binary triggers, bump stocks and any other such device;

    Will you be outlawing rubber bands? And will it be illegal to train my finger to move faster? 😉

    Mandate background checks for the public or private transfer or sale of any firearm;

    Already the law in Virginia.

Leave a Reply

Read More