A person in the habit of uttering threats of violence in a public space has no business possessing a firearm.

Arguing that he does is mendacious foolery, nobody believes it's being done in good faith, not even the person pressing the argument. Someone who thinks this will lead to experiencing difficulties themselves is tendering more a comment on themselves than on the propriety of the policy. When someone does, I am courteous enough to take them seriously, and agree their conduct may well be such that their possession of a firearm is a threat to others and themselves.

If this bill passes can, and will, it be expanded to include driver's license, teachers certificate, pilots license, filing for public office, applying for a job at a financial institution, working in any medical field, and other responsible positions of trust?
It hardly seems fair to expect one group of people to submit to this invasion of privacy and give all others a pass.

an invasion of privacy. If you put it on facebook or other public forum you clearly intend others to see it so how is looking at it an invasion of privacy?

Is that you view owning firearms as a public trust. Such a view hardly comports with unrestricted, or loosely restricted, acquisition and possession of firearms.

The purchase, ownership, and use of firearms are restricted. Even in the "Constitutional Carry" states, there are restrictions and laws that must be followed. If a person with a firearm violates these restrictions there will be a legal price to pay. Law enforcement takes a dim view of careless or reckless use of a firearm. Just as when you get behind the wheel of a car you must obey the rules, when you take it upon yourself to carry a firearm you must also follow the rules.

Possession of firearms by people without character and judgement capable of sustaining power of life and death over their fellow beings is the reason such a pile of corpses accumulates here, and nowhere else where a reasonable civil order prevails.

Regulation is not the answer. We tried serious regulation with liqueur in the 1920s and it failed. We tried regulation on certain drugs and failed again. We post speed limit signs and few people obey them. We pass laws in hopes that the 1% will pay taxes, and they find ways to avoid them anyway.
I do not have an answer to the violence that we have in our country. If I did I would be happy to share it with everyone and try to make our country more peaceful. I do not know what would possess any sane person to kill complete strangers. If there were a regulation or law that these people would obey I would certainly vote for whichever candidate supported the passage of that law.
I do know that I try to obey the law and encourage others to obey the law. That is the best I can do until someone smarter than me comes up with some measure that would actually work. I do know that targeting honest law-abiding firearm owners does nothing to stop the violence. It does cost votes for the Democrats. And this election cycle every vote counts.

It is one fuck of a lot easier to kill a person with a pistol than a baseball bat. Until this is recognized as the guide for policy, the corpses will continue to pile higher and higher.

The 'if there was a regulation people would obey I'd support it' line is never offered in good faith. No one who presses it suggests there should be no laws against burglary because burglars disobey them. Generally, they want strict enforcement of such laws against those who break them, and feel this will discourage the practice.

The nearest thing to an honest basis for pressing that line is confession that by now there may be too many persons possessing firearms who lack a temperament capable of regulating use of an engine of death, who will refuse to conform their behavior to requirements of law, and therefore the government of the country, and the great majority of its citizens, must take care not to rouse their defiance.

Make them do it. Make them resist law enforcement like any felon fool enough to offer armed resistance to a criminal warrant's execution. For if that is the case, the situation is quite dire. A state which cannot maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is no state at all, and if that is the case here, we have failed as a culture, a society, and a government.

Asking for a friend.

I had intended to leave this thread and just accept that we see this matter differently. I do respect your opinion and would hope that you respect mine. It would be nice to find a middle ground that works for both of us. At this time that will probably not happen. Perhaps someday.

However, as I considered what you had posted, one phrase kept running through my mind. In fact, it became somewhat of an earworm. That phrase is "monopoly on the legitimate use of force". In light of recent decisions from our Judicial Branch of Government, and thinking back on the temperament and wisdom of some of our recent leaders, I must wonder who gets to decide just what the "legitimate use of force" is, when it will be used, how much will be used, and on whom it will be used.

Are we taking a chance by giving that much power to some of the people who have been recently elected? This seems like an appropriate question to ask ourselves on this 4th Day of July. How much do we value our Individual Independence? The Bill of Rights does not GIVE us any Rights. It merely lists those Rights that we already have and protects them from those who would deny them.

Can we justify heavy restrictions or outright bans on items solely because they top a list of what makes killing easiest?

This is simply an inference from a the post that you replied to.

The problem is that the number of persons murdered with guns is greatly in excess of the average for prosperous nations which maintain a civil order within their borders. Persons in the United States are five times more likely to be murdered than are persons in Germany, on a per capita basis, and this would true roughly for comparison with any developed country.

The goal is reducing the number of murders till it is at a rate more or less matching the average for a developed country.

The difference in the rates of murder owe mostly to the wide circulation of firearms in this country, relative to other developed countries.

The ready availability of a device which makes it far easier to kill on a whim, to kill with very little physical effort, which requires no more than a moment's emotional heat and a twitch of a finger to kill, suggests itself as a reason for the greater lethality of our society.

Policy in this question ought to be made in light of sound analysis, rather than by the fantasies of fetishists and hobbyists and people who mistake popular entertainments for descriptions of reality, all deliberately cultivated for profit both pecuniary and political by a cartel of manufacturers and a cabal of politicians.

The US non-gun murder rate (murders by any means other than a firearm) exceeds the overall UK murder rate (all means).

This thread concerns the plan of NYS's attempt to judge fitness to engage in self-defense with gun by examining social media posts where people often come to vent, argue and otherwise emote on various topics. In my youth I would occasionally hear my father suggest that someone should murder the umpire after a contentious call in a baseball game. I can think of no one more patient and even tempered than him.

This proposed law arose due to NYS requiring that citizens prove they were worthy of the use of a gun in self-defense in public while the state allowed for politicians, retired law enforcement, wealthy and powerful folks to have a much easier time exercising that option.

There will always be a means which is used more/most often in assault and murder. When the current most often used means is unavailable another will rise to top.

Have good evening.

The OP posited that the New York regulation was the thin end of a wedge for Chi-Com style social and thought control.

Which is flat insane, and simply illustrates the point.

People in the gunners clique will talk about anything, warn about anything, to avoid facing the great fact of the situation: the more guns are in circulation, the more people will be shot with them, which suggests an obvious solution, which they are unwilling to face, generally for reasons rooted in fantasy, and more often than not purile or malicious.

It is as true of a state one disapproves as it is of state one applauds.

The idea rights are inherent, rather than defined by law, is vaguely humorous. What humans are raised to think themselves 'entitled to' varies far too widely from culture to culture and from time to time. Absent law, there are no rights whatever save those a person may enforce for themselves with a strong arm. It might be nice were this not so, but it is

"Absent law, there are no rights whatever save those a person may enforce for themselves with a strong arm."
Sadly, this is true.

Glad to have made your acquaintance.


Be well, and stay safe.

was AG under Bush the Lesser. After dutifully taking the classes, passing the written and shooting (Lord have mercy) tests, they told us what to put on the application as a reason for wanting the license: To demonstrate responsibility.

I would have thought you had to be responsible BEFORE you got the license, but nooooo.

After re-reading that link, the proposed legislation sounds like a pr tactic or trial balloon rather than actual laws. You don’t craft something that egregiously invasive expecting every idea will just sail into the law books. Much of what is in that link is sensible and others are stunningly Orwellian. Throw thirty things at a wall and see what fourteen of ‘em stick, something like that? I’ve lived in China but not for over a decade. What’s happening there now is beyond frightening. But the power of the State and local authorities in that country is bound by no laws, no matter what they might have written down. Law there is completely arbitrary. So, while I understand you drawing a comparison between the two links you cited, it’s not entirely on the mark.

...lost in a tragic browser accident.