Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
Finally disarming cops, eh?
No. They don’t. If you’re not a responsible person you cannot be a responsible gun owner.
This is a rather conservative supreme Court though. I honestly think they might find that gun rights trump an abuse survivor’s right to safety.
It’s not even a gun rights thing. It goes deeper. The conservative movement has the ideal of the Pater Familias, the male head of the family who holds the power of life and death over the members. In every way that matters, the Pater Familias owns their wife and children.
That’s the traditional family that they want to bring back.
The thing is, even in ancient Rome (where the term was created) the community would often step in and take the family away if the abuse got too bad.
All throughout human history, if a husband beat his family too much, the other men in the community might “have a word” with him. Sometimes that was a quiet conversation, and sometimes it was a beating with the wife and kids staying suddenly with her sister.
It was only after we started living in cities that people started “minding their own business”.
And yes, there have always been abusers who have been clever about hiding their abuse. But the conservative ideal of a man who could do whatever he wanted to his own family, never actually existed.
It’s not just gun rights. It’s really a 5th ammendment issue that due process is required to deprive a person on life, liberty, or property.
Domestic abusers shouldn’t have guns…this is true.
The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what’s being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)…because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser…which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who’ve been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.
If some people losing their right to own guns based on a false accusation also means that some different people don’t get murdered by their psycho exes, is that a good thing on balance?
If some innocent people get executed, but that also means that different, highly-dangerous criminals get executed, is that a good thing on balance?
I’m not sure what your point is.
If you have enough evidence for protective order, then there should be enough for a criminal trial. If you don’t have enough for a criminal conviction, then IMO you shouldn’t have enough evidence to remove a person’s civil rights. A person that has been convicted of a domestic violence offense–including misdemeanors–is already a prohibited person.
I’m not sure what relevance your previous post has to this topic.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important. As for the right to own a firearm, I’m of the opinion that it’s past time to revisit this amendment. People living in countries without something similar to the 2nd amendment aren’t less free. In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
As for your point about protective orders. Did you read the article? The rationale is discussed there.
In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
Fortunately, the only reason to have such fear is media sensationalism and your personal failure to understand the statistics.
Despite the fearmongering, you’re still not even close to likely to experience one.
People also argue that China is more free than the US because people aren’t burdened with the need to choose which party they prefer, or worry about speech that may run counter to the party’s beliefs. And hey!, they have healthcare!
Personally, I believe in civil rights, including the ability to be a religious fundamentalist of any stripe, to say dumb shit that’s devoid of reason without being politically persecuted for it, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (all of which are constantly being eroded by SCOTUS), and yes, the right to own the firearms of your own choice.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important.
By this argument, you could claim that an absolute totalitarian gov’t that allowed no freedom of any kind and ruthlessly prevented any criminal activity would be a better choice than a style of governance that allowed for any person freedom at all, since all freedoms can be misused in ways that cause harm. By eliminating all rights, you ensure that the gov’t has the ability to keep the maximum number of people safe and secure. You don’t even have to go that far; you could claim that speech that is politically unpopular should be criminalized, that any religion to the right of Unitarian Universalists causes harm to people and society and should be excised, that it’s necessary for the police to have broad search and seizure authority to prevent harmful activities, and so on and so forth.
The point is that infringing people’s rights because there -might- be some public good is a horrible precedent.
Some people will say yes and some people will say no. The same argument you made could be used to outlaw a LOT of human behavior, though.
For me personally, I universally don’t think it’s fair that I could be stripped of some of my rights without due process - that bit is important to me regardless of whether that is used for wrongdoing by others or not. A better solution would be to make due process happen faster, imo…or for the state to take a more proactive role in protecting the accuser until that due process runs its course.
Where do they issue protective orders without more than the word of the accused?
Temporary POs, yes. But actual POs are pretty hard to get. Mine was denied even though my abuser plead guilty to domestic violence because the courts believed he should have the parental right to abuse his children without supervision, too.
The current precedent that is being used to apply the law makes no distinction between “protective order” and “restraining order”. It also makes no distinction between “protective order” and “temporary protective order” nor does it recognize a distinction between “restraining order” and “temporary restraining order”. So considering that, and because the naming convention varies from state to state, we’re forced to consider all those terms equal under the current interpretation of law and current court precedence.
You’ve already admitted that Temporary POs are easy. How easy? In most states, the only requirement is a signed affidavit from an accuser claiming they feel threatened. That’s it.
I’m not going to go look it up state by state to give you the requirements, but I did look up California’s (since they have such a huge population and since many other states base their own laws on the precedence that California sets). In California, an EPO (emergency protective order) can be granted solely from “a person’s allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse”. See California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250 Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf
That’s it. Also in California (and in many other states), EPOs are temporary, but can be repeatedly extended until some upcoming court date can decide on a permanent resolution (and this can take weeks to months). Also in California (and in many other states), a domestic EPO is sufficient to deny someone access to firearms, revoke their concealed handgun license, etc. Here’s the quote from the State of California Emergency Protective Order Bench Guide for judges:
Any EPO issued prohibits the restrained person from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition during the term of the protective order. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in jail, a $1000 fine, or both.15 Any firearm must be surrendered while the protective order is in effect. Additionally, in a gun violence EPO (form EPO-002), ammunition, including magazines, must also be surrendered.
And that bit about “must be surrendered”…comes with some pretty big penalties also. When surrendered, the state takes possession and assigns fees to the subject of the order for hanging onto them…and then if/when the protective order is ultimately lifted or defeated in court, that poor bastard still needs to hire a lawyer to navigate the legal system and all the forms and filings to get them back. One fraudulent protection order ends up costing the subject tens of thousands of dollars.
…And this is the precedent that is currently being challenged.
I had my own brother crashing on my couch for 4 months for this very issue (his ex had filed a fraudulent one against him without needing any more evidence than an allegation…and 3 months into it (after a dozen extensions), she threatened to file one against ME for refusing to let her into my house where he was staying. Obviously, some protection orders are valid and necessary, but the system is currently easily abused by anyone who wants to make their ex’s life miserable and there are ZERO repercussions for filing a fraudulent protection order. I think it’s fair to reconsider how many rights we are willing to violate against an innocent person before there is due process in a court proceeding.
My wife wasn’t given a protection order when a threat was made on her life by her ex. Cop said it was free speech.
I know that one: no, no they don’t.
‘Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun.’
Read this link if you want to know more https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/domestic-violence-and-firearms/
It’s interesting that you support a Johns Hopkins piece with… a John Hopkins piece. That’s a bit like doubling down on Everytown.
That particular claim is built upon some incredibly sketch analysis. This is the most common backing source.
The methodology:
An 11-city case–control design was used; femicide victims were cases (n = 220), and randomly identified abused women residing in the same metropolitan area were control women (n = 343). Co-investigators at each site collaborated with domestic violence advocacy, law enforcement, and medical examiner offices in implementing the study. Sampling quotas for cases and control women in each city were proportionately calculated so that the cities with the highest annual femicide rates included the largest number of cases and control women.
There’s already a flaw here - bias in selection. By prioritizing 11 of the ~20k cities, towns, and villages in the US which has the highest counts of domestic violence murder of the female, they’re skewing away from instances where there’s… less murder. Of course your homicide rates are going to report higher, no matter what the risk factor.
It gets better, though - they skew numbers further by eliminating those with a history of abuse and those just too old to care about:
Two exclusion criteria, age (18–50 years) and no previous abuse by the femicide perpetrator, resulted in the elimination of 87 additional cases (28.3% of 307 cases), with 59 (19.2% of 307 cases) eliminated solely as a result of the latter criterion.
It’s interesting they don’t actually note what those cities are - it would be good to know if there are other notable stats e.g. crime rate, poverty, safety nets, so on. Heck, they recognize such:
Another limitation was that we excluded women who did not reside in large urban areas (other than Wichita, Kan) and control group women who did not have telephones. We also failed to keep records of exactly which proxy interviews (estimated to be less than 10% of the total) were conducted in person rather than by telephone, and thus we cannot evaluate the effects of this source of bias. Finally, we have no way to compare the control women who participated with those who did not, and women living in the most dangerous situations may have been less likely to participate as control women. If so, true exposure to the risk factors of interest among women involved in abusive intimate relationships may be greater than our control data suggest, thus inflating our estimates of increased risks associated with these exposures.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Wichita isn’t a model of prosperity and social safety nets.
That brings us to another flaw - this study isn’t interested in identifying the spread and impact of all risk factors but instead is only interested in confirming presence of an already-suspected risk factor - another problem they recognize:
The interview included previously tested instruments, such as the Danger Assessment,16,17 and gathered information on demographic and relationship characteristics, including type, frequency, and severity of violence, psychological abuse, and harassment; alcohol and drug use; and weapon availability. … Perhaps the most important limitation of the study is its necessary reliance on proxy respondents for data regarding hypothesized risk factors for intimate partner femicide cases.
This flaw entirely precludes consideration for the whether or not the presence of the firearm was material in the person’s decision to murder e.g. impulsivity, whether or not they’d have just used another implement, etc.
That brings us to the most egregious flaw - simple, classic misleading through emotional appeal. Setting aside the selection bias and risk of over-representation, what is the actual rate and actual factor? You’ll note none of the studies seem to actually address this. Going with Violence Policy Center’s analysis of 2019 data, they at least provide numbers:
In 2019, there were 1,795 females murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report.
So, in 2019, a given woman was subject to odds of five ten thousandths of a percent (1,795/~330 million) likely to be murdered in domestic violence. If we extrapolate up to an expected life span of, say, 80 years, a given woman has been exposed to an ~0.04% total likelihood of being murdered in domestic violence. Oh, but that would hypothetically only be ~0.009% without those firearms; clearly they’re the problem.
This source also provide a breakdown of implements:
Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,566), more female homicides were committed with firearms (58 percent) than with all other weapons combined. Knives and other cutting instruments accounted for 19 percent of all female murders, bodily force 10 percent, and murder by blunt object five percent. Of the homicides committed with firearms, 65 percent were committed with handguns.
Despite the arguments made regarding how firearms are the devil for making murder so easy, fists and knives gave an incredible showing of ~1/3 the murders. Notably, John Hopkins provides no hyperbole about knives. Weird, that. Notably absent is any implication of the presence of any of those items increasing risk.
This data also highlights clear skew toward some states regarding domestic violence homicide rates. Want to place a bet on where significant portions of the John Hopkins data came from?
For that year, Alaska ranked first as the state with the highest homicide rate among female victims killed by male offenders in single victim/single offender incidents. Its rate of 5.14 per 100,000 was more than four times the national rate. Alaska was followed by New Mexico (2.64 per 100,000) and Nevada (2.28 per 100,000). The remaining states with the 10 highest rates, all of which had female homicide victimization rates higher than the national rate, can be found in the chart below.
Ultimately, we’re left with not a lot of support for Johns Hopkins’ stance - which makes sense, as they can’t really seem to support it either.
I’m all for addressing domestic violence, but let’s not lie to ourselves and pretend it’s all sunshine and rainbows without firearms, and let’s not thoughtlessly share the conclusions of biased sources as if they’re meaningful - we’ve had enough erosion of sense over the last decade.
This is a lot of splitting of hairs on your part. Are you a social scientist and a statistician? If not, I will defer to the experts on this. The amount of unreported domestic abuse dwarfs the amount that is reported. Also, solely focusing on deaths is a misnomer. Being threatened by an abuser with a gun is rather common and also detrimental to the mental health of the victim.
This is a lot of splitting of hairs on your part.
I’m not sure I’d consider criticism of Johns Hopkins tendency to make assertions not supported by underlying sources and tendency to use sources with glaring methodological flaws and myriad biases to be merely splitting hairs - the distinctions highlighted are both substantial and serious.
Are you a social scientist and a statistician? If not, I will defer to the experts on this.
I am a software engineer. Analysis is my bread and butter.
You’ll note my criticism isn’t of their ability to compute statistics, but rather the methodology used for identifying data points for consideration having flaws skewing outputs and for their survey being an exercise in confirmation bias.
Feel free to defer to others - however, please understand you’re also waiving your right to reference or discuss this study when you decide you aren’t going to bother to understand it and what it’s actually stating. I’m not comfortable opting to skip the critical thinking phase, but you do you.
The amount of unreported domestic abuse dwarfs the amount that is reported.
Nifty. I’m not sure how the homicides would be under reported, though - given that’s the subject.
Also, solely focusing on deaths is a misnomer. Being threatened by an abuser with a gun is rather common and also detrimental to the mental health of the victim.
You may have meant methodological flaw.
Either way, given the subject was deaths as raised by Johns Hopkins, feel free to provide them such feedback.
I’m sure they’ll get right on it.
I know all caps isn’t the proper Netiquette but that’s what the article published.
Thanks for saying so. All caps does come off as shouting and the headline itself comes off as a loaded, no pun intended, queston.
NO PROBLEM!
Unfortunately, in many states, no actual proof or evidence is required to get a domestic protection order issued against someone. Some individuals do actually weaponize the justice system just to take out their anger on another person, damage their reputation, and make their life hell for no other reason than to make their life hell.
This article title is bait and switch. The law still would prohibit convicted domestic abusers from possessing firearms. The subject of this current challenge is about whether it should continue to impact people who’ve merely been accused by someone or not.
This has happened to both my brother and a very good long-time friend. Both individuals were eventually completely vindicated but the current system allowed an accuser, without any evidence, the ability to have protection orders placed, their firearms confiscated, their concealed pistol licenses revoked, their reputations damaged, and it cost them thousands in attorneys fees to deal with. And at the end of it all, and after being completely vindicated, zero repercussions for the accuser of the false accusations.
I don’t know what the right answer is here, but the discussion has merit before blindly accepting the title of this post at face value because there’s a lot more to it than what the title implies.
In order for such orders to be useful they need to be easy to get wothout evidence. However because they must be easy to get falsely the effect must be limited to the minimum needed and they cannot destory someones life.
In contrast people’s rights and privileges shouldn’t be allowed to be taken away with a one sided claim with no evidence. It’s really tough to balance, and if it only happened to actual abusers, no one would really care.
The problem I have with this is the cost.
The cost of living in a world where someone can strip you of your right to currently possess a firearm by accusing you of violence, is that you get to not have access to a firearm, currently.
The cost of living in a world that doesn’t restrict a person’s right to access a firearm via a claim of violence, is that people die to firearms by those in possession of a firearm.
I haven’t really seen a good argument as to why someone’s right to have the ability to always, at all times, and forever be allowed access to a firearm that makes it more valuable than a human life.
I’ve seen a lot of fantastic arguments for ownership of firearms, lemme tell ya. And I support them. But if we are paying for those privileges with human lives, we need to quantify the value of a firearm, versus the value of a human life. I can’t (I’m being serious, I really can’t) figure out exactly how many human lives we should be willing to “pay” in order to continue to have those freedoms.
It’s not about guns specifically, it’s about the government depriving a person of property without due process. It would be even safer if we just took these people to jail and promised a real hearing within 72 hours. We don’t do that because that’s more obviously a denial of due process.
“Due process” is fair treatment through the judicial system. When we discuss making laws regarding how people should be treated, those laws become the process that is due. I reject the idea what we can’t discuss changing the law because “that’s the way the law is.”
Additionally, broadening the point to “property” doesn’t at all somehow change the premise. “It’s about property rights!” It’s about the rights to the property of firearms.
And you did what the other person did! Y’all keep completely ignoring what I’m asking, to try and make some other point!
- That’s not how due process works. You can’t pass laws that let the state do something and then they can, because that’s the law now. If you want to change due process, amend the constitution.
- The fact it’s about firearms is irrelevant until the due process question is answered. Property is property, whether it’s a gun, car, pet, lamp, or computer. Once due process is satisfied, you can argue whether guns are important enough to deprive a person of or not.
- The point you are making isn’t interesting. ALL people have rights, your rights don’t trump others. You need proof to take away someone’s rights in the US. We’ve also decided that the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in both criminal and civil matters. Even guilty people get rights, which sometimes makes protecting the innocent difficult. Just because domestic violence is difficult to address, doesn’t mean we get to change the rules just for this.
Property isn’t property. You don’t have to go through a background check to buy a package of socks. You don’t have to pay annual taxes in order to continue to own your underwear. You don’t register your toothbrush, nor need a license to mow your lawn.
Society has already decided certain forms of property are treated differently than others.
You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege. If you do not respect the nature of a privilege it can be taken away. Look at cars. There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car. Yet more and a wider variety of people likely own cars than guns. If you are caught using your car in a way that endangers regular citizenry - say you are drunk or show a history of repeated reckless endangerment while operating then you can have your licence to operate a vehicle suspended or permanently removed. Taking someone’s ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to because driving is a privilege, everyone knows it’s a privilege and when you fuck around with that privilege you find out.
There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.
You use the word privilege here and firearm ownership should be a privilege.
It’s downright nifty to feel that way.
The reality is it’s a constitutionally-protected right.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that guarantees the ownership and free usage of a car.
I’m not sure you thought this through; they’re entirely unregulated in use on private property.
Taking someone’s ability to drive has way more of an effect on the daily quality of life of a person than taking their guns away yet people often do not quibble over someone this happens to
Lol - it’s okay because occasionally people don’t complain? Yikes.
Have you heard of the danger of the indifference of good men?
There are lots of democratic societies who apply this to guns. Iceland and Canada for instance still have a high level of gun ownership but it is a licencable privilege, not a right.
Canada, in particular, is doing its best to do away with even that - it’s not a great example. I’m also not sure you can find any example that even approaches the level of ownership we enjoy.
Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.
There’s this fantasy that has been planted in your head that you need this security blanket of complete unrestricted access to firearms to uphold your democracy… But just like a child’s security blanket it is a fantasy of false security. What would happen if you and a bunch of your buddies decided to turn on your own government and plan an insurrection or resist a sitting government directive? If it comes to resources you would have to create concensus for enacting violence all under the spectre of surveillance and then you would be facing one of the most milliterized nations in the world on their home turf. Your right to carry does less to protect you than the reluctance and image concerns of a governing body that calls itself “free” to fire on it’s own citizens…
This isn’t the 18th century anymore. What makes a constitutional right is a CURRENT agreement by the standing government body. Dynamic rules that exist to modify it. That document can be amended AND repealed. Saying “It’s a constitutional right!” as though that is immutable isn’t a reason in itself. The option always exists to ditch it as a right.
Yes you do enjoy high levels of ownership in the US. You also enjoy extreme numbers of firearm related homicide and spree killing all in the name of an antiquated and poorly grammarically construed piece of legislation made by paranoid rebels back before the average rifle had rifling much less high capacity magazines.
I see we’re going for most level-headed ex-Redditor - hit me up when you’ve got a point instead of a hyperbolic rant.
The option always exists to ditch it as a right.
Lol, good luck with that amendment.
It’s good you didn’t bring out the actual statistics of those killed by their abusers vs. those temporarily deprived of their grown man pacifiers. Your facts might have hurt their feelings.
After all, it’s mostly just women and children dying and living in fear. No big deal. /s
Theoretically what if it is A and B have fallen out and A is abusive and threating to B but gasligjts B and blames them…B finally gets courage to leave and find shelter, this annoys A and they are really manipulative and coerciaeve so they play victim and put order on B and then B has no protection
I started typing up an answer to your hypothetical but then I realized you didn’t at all address my question. I’d love an answer to the content of my comment instead of an answer designed to try change my mind without addressing the premise or in any way engaging what I said.
Things like this have happened.
My wife got hit with a TRO after her ex and his girlfriend attacked her. It would be a great way of ensuring a victim had no access to the means to protect themselves, wouldn’t it?
I agree with that…but that is not how it’s currently implemented.
It would be more accurate to say the case in question is about whether or not due process matters for such a restriction; that civil findings are insufficient to restricting one’s constitutional rights.
Leave it to John Hopkins to misrepresent a “firearms” issue entirely.
This comment section is pathetic.
How so?
For everyone else:
Yea the thing this article puts in the fine print is he has not been convicted of any crimes, he has not had his bail revoked by the judge, and none of the alleged crimes were fellonius. If any of these three conditions had been met, he would not have his weapons. The case was not struck down due to a 2A violation, it was struck down because it’s unconstitutional under the due process clause, and pretty black and white at that. If he endangered the public after his arraignment the judge should have revoked his bail.
That’s giving me an API error. What’s the readers digest version?
If you want someone to lose rights, convict them of a felony or revoke their bail as a danger to society. Neither of these things were done in this case, so this isnt’ a 2A case, it’s a due process case.
The way I see it is that no one is being deprived of due process. If your guns were removed you will still have your day in court. Timing is incredibly critical on situations like theses. I value someone’s right to live over someone else’s right to possess guns. Specially since they can petition a court to review their case and if it doesn’t meet the standard establishmented by law then the guns can be returned with no permanent damage done to the gun holder. To me the due process argument is a wrapper for a 2a argument.
Specially since they can petition a court to review their case
You do understand you’re putting the burden on the person whose rights are being restricted without them having “had their day”, right? That’s… kind of the whole problem.
If we had some sort of standard for ample evidence etc. for such civil matters I might be more inclined to agree, but restraining orders can be laughably easy to obtain in places.
If you get caught drunk driving your license is revoked before your day in court. There are many instances of society restricting rights before your day in court. Perhaps no one should ever be in jail by your logic before being convicted.
Yes I completely understand that. I think the prophylactic benefit outweighs the inconvenience. Due process is there when the order is originally given and there is a method of redress.
They don’t have to petition. POs have hearings. That IS due process.
Want to keep your guns? Stop being a dick and present as someone with the self-control that society has decided is required to own one.
WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?!??
BECAUSE I’M LOSING MY HEARING AND I CAN’T TELL THAT I’M BEING LOUD
ME TOO!
WHAT?
NO
Of course they do! Otherwise, all Republicans would have to give up their guns.
No. Next question.
Quick note that is neither in favor nor opposed:
In many places in the US, you need to provide an address in order to get a protective order so that the subject of the order knows where they can’t go. For people that have left violent partners, that’s a generally bad idea, since police generally don’t do anything to enforce protective orders, even after repeated violations.
Personally, I find the “gun debate” very interesting. On one hand, you have common sense. On the other hand, the constitution.
Being that in 2006, four Democratically appointed justices acknowledged the second amendment is in regard to state militias and five Republican appointed justices essentially affirmed state militias aren’t even mentioned in the second amendment (barely an exaggeration), the right to protect yourself with a firearm is going trump someone else’s right to not be afraid of being shot by a known aggressor.
As it is, on paper, I side with someone’s right to protect themselves, even a domestic abuser. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think everything but six shooters and hunting rifles should be banned and melted down.
Which brings us to the topics of mental health, human decency, the oppression of the poor, police brutality, underfunded school systems, the breakdown of supportive family structures, lack of constructive outlets, religious zealots, inflation, gender roles, fear of irrelevance, exportation and robotization of jobs, etc, etc, etc. As has been in the headlines, do people really have free choice when “the system” steers them down a path?
It’s a quandary.
The easy solution would be to let only let people who have proven beyond doubt that they are good enough to own and carry a gun are allowed to do that. If the faith into their ability gets dented, put those weapons in custody until the case is cleared. That’s how about any other country does handle the gun issue, and they all have less problems than the US for some unexplainable reason…
Alternatively- if someone is to dangerous to have a gun then they are too dangerous to participate in society any more.
There are quite a lot of people who I would let participate in society, but never with a gun.
all guns should be owned by bricks /s
