re: #30 Belafon

There are three requirements I would put in place regarding guns:
1. No weapons that can fire more than one round per squeeze of the trigger. It must be illegal to modify a gun to do that, and guns would have to be hard to be modified that way (a shotgun would be hard to do as an automatic weapon).
2. All gun transfers must be registered.
3. A list showing people who cannot own a gun. Getting on the list requires the approval of a judge. A temporary state can be issued by a judge; a permanent entry requires a hearing.

So if a person is deemed mentally unfit to own a gun by a physician or a psychiatrist, would you force them to report (in violation of privacy rights and HIPPA) to said list? How would you populate the list? How would you allow someone knowledge they are on the list? How could you contest your inclusion on the list?

These are all arguments that have been made before, and the gun apologist who makes your suggestion when faced with these questions will immediately argue that we can’t do that.

It goes back to Jim Wright and his Twitter war with a gun guy over this stuff. The real answer is this is the price we will pay, because we are held hostage by a minority organisation with a lot of money and craven politicians beholden to it.

Shall we open your medical records up to a government official to see if you are “fit” to possess a gun as determined by a judge? How would that record be determined to be sent to the judge?

Nope. Gun organisations won’t allow it; some of that is their own suggestions.

As also noted, they say we just need to enforce the law better. In Orlando this morning, that is exactly what the police said; they could do nothing, because the law was on the gunman’s side right up until he initiated his attack.

Therefore a Vietnam War of casualties every year is the price we will pay, because nothing can be done until the terrorist organisations that promote violence are removed from power.