An 8-year-old boy intentionally shot and killed his elderly caregiver on Thursday evening after playing a violent video game, authorities say.
Marie Smothers was pronounced dead at the scene with a gunshot wound to the head in a mobile home park in Slaughter, Louisiana, the East Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Department said in a statement. Slaughter is about 20 miles north of Baton Rouge.
Authorities identified the woman as the boy's "caregiver," without stating whether she is a relative. But CNN affiliate WBRZ reported that the woman was the boy's grandmother.
Smothers was 87, public records show.
"By accounts of relatives of the victim, as well as friends of the family, the victim and the juvenile had a normal, loving, relationship and even shared the same bedroom," the sheriff's department said.
The gun belonged to Smothers, WBRZ reported. CNN affiliate WAFB reported that a man identifying himself as the boy's father also said the gun belongs to Smothers.
Studies on video games and violence Ex-profiler: Video games erode empathy
Although the boy initially told investigators that he accidentally shot the woman while playing with a firearm, the probe led authorities to believe he "intentionally shot Mrs. Smothers in the back of the head as she sat in her living room watching television," the sheriff's department statement said.
The boy won't face charges. Under Louisiana law, a child under 10 is exempt from criminal responsibility.
"We have a child who does not know the impact of the consequences of the act he committed," Sclynski Legier, a lawyer, told CNN affiliate WAFB. "He truly doesn't understand that."
The sheriff's department press release implies the child's activities in a violent virtual world may have led to the killing.
"Although a motive for the shooting is unknown at this time investigators have learned that the juvenile suspect was playing a video game on the Play Station III 'Grand Theft Auto IV', a realistic game that has been associated with encouraging violence and awards points to players for killing people, just minutes before the homicide occurred."
He is now with his parents.
Neighbors say the mobile home park is generally a quiet and safe place, and they wonder why precautions hadn't been taken.
"Where did she have the gun? Where was It placed? Was it in his eyesight? That's what kind of thoughts are going through my head," Johnnie Smith told WBRZ.
Violence in video games
There has long been debate about whether virtual violence in video games leads to actual violence, and it's become more heated since 26 people were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012. Like many young males who went on shooting rampages in the past, the shooter, Adam Lanza, was reportedly obsessed with violent video games.
Is media violence damaging to kids?
Speaking soon after the shootings at Sandy Hook, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who led his state through grieving after a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, speculated that there was a connection.
"There might well be some direct connection between people who have some mental instability and when they go over the edge -- they transport themselves, they become part of one of those video games," Hickenlooper said on CNN's "State of the Union." "Perhaps that's why all these assault weapons are used."
A month after the Sandy Hook shooting, John Riccitiello, president and CEO of the video game maker Electronic Arts, said in a conference call with bank analysts there wasn't a connection, but the industry faces a "perception issue," the BBC reported.
Opinion: Video games didn't cause Newtown shooting
Vice President Joe Biden, who is heading an inquiry into the causes of gun violence, has floated the idea of taxing violent games and sending proceeds to help victims and their families, Forbes.com reported.
Studies by reputable academic and medical sources have come to a variety of conclusions over the years. The Obama administration called for more research into the connection following the Sandy Hook shooting.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can he even be held accountable at 8 years old? Im not even sure i knew what death meant? He certainly cant be tried as an adult?
And games erode sympathy? I cry all the time because sad thins happen

The boy won't face charges. Under Louisiana law, a child under 10 is exempt from criminal responsibility.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Instead of blaming computer games and taxing them and other crap, how about discussing the one thing that frequently is ignored in these reports? These things have age ratings on them for a reason, blame the parents not the games. Someone gave an 18+ game to an 8 year old. You don't give porn and video nasties to 8 year olds, so why give them adult computer games?

Anyway I find it hard to believe that playing GTA would lead anyone to kill. I suggest other things are going on in their mind and upbringing.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Instead of blaming computer games and taxing them and other crap, how about discussing the one thing that frequently is ignored in these reports? These things have age ratings on them for a reason, blame the parents not the games. Someone gave an 18+ game to an 8 year old. You don't give porn and video nasties to 8 year olds, so why give them adult computer games?

Anyway I find it hard to believe that playing GTA would lead anyone to kill. I suggest other things are going on in their mind and upbringing.

Perhaps he was looking for a body armor upgrade

 d-usa wrote:
I think this is a case where it is pretty clear that violent games can lead to violent actions if somebody is too young to understand the difference between game and real life, and a good example why there are age ratings for games like that.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can he even be held accountable at 8 years old? Im not even sure i knew what death meant?

 Jihadin wrote:
Well...you can learn how to load, jack a round into the chamber and fire just from PS3/Xbox360....

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a feeling she took a nap and he explored around. Weapon in a drawer with rounds...

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder if it was a revolver or a pistol...

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I’m going to go ahead and blame the victim here. She shouldn’t have has the firearm (together with ammunition) where an 8 year old boy could find it.

As for the violent video game angle, again I blame the victim. Why did you buy GTA 3 for an 8 year old?

I don’t believe that violent video games lead to violent behavior but I do believe that you should respect the rateing on the box.

The boy won't face charges. Under Louisiana law, a child under 10 is exempt from criminal responsibility.
"We have a child who does not know the impact of the consequences of the act he committed," Sclynski Legier, a lawyer, told CNN affiliate WAFB. "He truly doesn't understand that."

 Jihadin wrote:
Battle Field is one. Not sure on GTA.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
So nobody is going to touch the fact that this took place in a town called "Slaughter"?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
I’m going to go ahead and blame the victim here. She shouldn’t have has the firearm (together with ammunition) where an 8 year old boy could find it.

As for the violent video game angle, again I blame the victim. Why did you buy GTA 3 for an 8 year old?

I don’t believe that violent video games lead to violent behavior but I do believe that you should respect the rateing on the box.

Good ole'dakka doesn't disappoint

 d-usa wrote:
I think this is a case where it is pretty clear that violent games can lead to violent actions if somebody is too young to understand the difference between game and real life, and a good example why there are age ratings for games like that.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think this is a case where it is pretty clear that violent games can lead to violent actions if somebody is too young to understand the difference between game and real life, and a good example why there are age ratings for games like that.

Gosh, a kid shot a lady with a copy of an 18-rated game. They should ban those games, they're dangerous.


Funny in the UK that kids rarely shoot ladies with copies of video games. Maybe it's because the UK has stricter laws... on video games. Yes, that must be it.

 d-usa wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think this is a case where it is pretty clear that violent games can lead to violent actions if somebody is too young to understand the difference between game and real life, and a good example why there are age ratings for games like that.

Gosh, a kid shot a lady with a copy of an 18-rated game. They should ban those games, they're dangerous.


Funny in the UK that kids rarely shoot ladies with copies of video games. Maybe it's because the UK has stricter laws... on video games. Yes, that must be it.

Did I say "ban the games"? I said "there is a good example why games have ratings". Games can and will influence behavior, one of the reasons why kids play is to work through real life problems and learn how to handle them. If you know anything about child development then you know that child's play is a lot more complicated and involved than just entertaining themselves. Kids learn through play, that's why violent games like this are not appropriate for 8 year old kids. Which is why they have ratings on them, which were ignored in this case.

The failure of gun safety is such an obvious case that I didn't even mention it.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Funny in the UK that kids rarely shoot ladies with copies of video games. Maybe it's because the UK has stricter laws... on video games. Yes, that must be it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
They aren't calling her a parents but a 'caregiver' which seems awkward. It makes me wonder where the child's parents actually are and what sort of upbringing they have had. Also, unless the kid had the ability to operate the gun fully to load and rack it, it was left easily obtainable and ready to fire.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't remember getting points for capping grannies in GTA IV...

Da krimson barun wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't remember getting points for capping grannies in GTA IV...

It was GTA 3.This was entirely the fault of whoever put the gun where it was,And whoever bought a game that you need to be 18 to play and gave it to a 8 year old.

The article wrote: the juvenile suspect was playing a video game on the Play Station III 'Grand Theft Auto IV'

Da krimson barun wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't remember getting points for capping grannies in GTA IV...

It was GTA 3.This was entirely the fault of whoever put the gun where it was,And whoever bought a game that you need to be 18 to play and gave it to a 8 year old.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please take "America is being ruined, because guns!" elsewhere. This is a bad parenting thread.

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

In some strange chance that my safe pops open, and the locked closet falls apart creating a light of awesome showing my children where the firearms are, they have STILL been taught how dangerous firearms can be and that they have no business touching them when Im not present. My children know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that what that kid did was wrong, dangerous and stupid. Its as simple as teaching them between right and wrong, and setting boundaries that they know they should never cross.

Im not saying my kids are on a higher standing or anything, because I know they are not perfect, but for gak sakes, teaching a child rules and them knowing punishment is abound when they break them is all it takes. Unless the kid is a frigging psychopath. Then Im sorry but there isnt much you can do with crazy

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please take "America is being ruined, because guns!" elsewhere. This is a bad parenting thread.

No. I won't. No it isn't.

However much I love America, and I do, having spent many months living in various places, there is a sickness in the part of its population that idolises objects designed to kill people. The fact that you attempt to turn this thread into a debate on video games is just the most obvious example of an elephant in the room that we could hope to see.

I'd also suggest that a fascination with firearms is often accompanied by a morbid or unhealthy fascination with violence in general, hence violent video games are likely to be found in a household with guns.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please take "America is being ruined, because guns!" elsewhere. This is a bad parenting thread.

No. I won't. No it isn't.

However much I love America, and I do, having spent many months living in various places, there is a sickness in the part of its population that idolises objects designed to kill people. The fact that you attempt to turn this thread into a debate on video games is just the most obvious example of an elephant in the room that we could hope to see.

I'd also suggest that a fascination with firearms is often accompanied by a morbid or unhealthy fascination with violence in general, hence violent video games are likely to be found in a household with guns.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please take "America is being ruined, because guns!" elsewhere. This is a bad parenting thread.

No. I won't. No it isn't.

However much I love America, and I do, having spent many months living in various places, there is a sickness in the part of its population that idolises objects designed to kill people. The fact that you attempt to turn this thread into a debate on video games is just the most obvious example of an elephant in the room that we could hope to see.

I'd also suggest that a fascination with firearms is often accompanied by a morbid or unhealthy fascination with violence in general, hence violent video games are likely to be found in a household with guns.

 streamdragon wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Please take "America is being ruined, because guns!" elsewhere. This is a bad parenting thread.

No. I won't. No it isn't.

However much I love America, and I do, having spent many months living in various places, there is a sickness in the part of its population that idolises objects designed to kill people. The fact that you attempt to turn this thread into a debate on video games is just the most obvious example of an elephant in the room that we could hope to see.

I'd also suggest that a fascination with firearms is often accompanied by a morbid or unhealthy fascination with violence in general, hence violent video games are likely to be found in a household with guns.

Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

 streamdragon wrote:


Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot fewer people had weapons back then, and they weren't military style.

The obsession with "assault weapons" on both sides of the gun debate is an indicator of the change in the psychological drives for weapon ownership.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

Duh. Maybe you should try reading the article and reflect on how sketchy the info about violent video games is in that article, as is the case with Sandy Hook. Of course we know there's a well-funded lobby springs into action every time a kid shoots someone, to say it's really the fault of a video game and not the firearm. Yet we have violent video games in the UK, and not too many kids shoot their granny.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot fewer people had weapons back then, and they weren't military style.

The obsession with "assault weapons" on both sides of the gun debate is an indicator of the change in the psychological drives for weapon ownership.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

Duh. Maybe you should try reading the article and reflect on how sketchy the info about violent video games is in that article, as is the case with Sandy Hook. Of course we know there's a well-funded lobby springs into action every time a kid shoots someone, to say it's really the fault of a video game and not the firearm. Yet we have violent video games in the UK, and not too many kids shoot their granny.

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.

I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

In some strange chance that my safe pops open, and the locked closet falls apart creating a light of awesome showing my children where the firearms are, they have STILL been taught how dangerous firearms can be and that they have no business touching them when Im not present. My children know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that what that kid did was wrong, dangerous and stupid. Its as simple as teaching them between right and wrong, and setting boundaries that they know they should never cross.

Im not saying my kids are on a higher standing or anything, because I know they are not perfect, but for gak sakes, teaching a child rules and them knowing punishment is abound when they break them is all it takes. Unless the kid is a frigging psychopath. Then Im sorry but there isnt much you can do with crazy

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The obsession with "assault weapons" on both sides of the gun debate is an indicator of the change in the psychological drives for weapon ownership.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I'm certainly not saying the UK is perfect. But the chances of being killed by a gun are minimal. Whether by a gang, or by accident.

As for the US, the argument about the guns already out there is made repeatedly. But it's rather like the argument about giving up smoking: what's the point, when I've probably done all the damage already?

A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. A single step here might be to allow things like research into gun safety - research which, IIRC, firearms advocates managed to forbid, several decades back.

Years ago, research showed american kids were around 10 times more likely to die from firearms accidents than kids in other developed countries. But now the gun lobby actively tries to discourage or ban real research, simply so they can blame other factors. Like video games.

 Avatar 720 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:


Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

Duh. Maybe you should try reading the article and reflect on how sketchy the info about violent video games is in that article, as is the case with Sandy Hook. Of course we know there's a well-funded lobby springs into action every time a kid shoots someone, to say it's really the fault of a video game and not the firearm. Yet we have violent video games in the UK, and not too many kids shoot their granny.

We do, however, have random shootings pretty much every week or so. Gun crime, whilst less of a problem here, still isn't solved by illegalising weapons.

You're trying to shift the blame onto the prevalence of the weapons themselves, rather than where it rightly belongs, for example with the mental state of the shooter, the upbringing of the shooter, the carelessness of the owner etc.

Illegalising guns in America would solve a lot of the cases of accidental shootings, but it would be only cutting the head off the hydra; the potential owners would still be careless, people would still be mentally ill, it would not cut at the heart of issue whatsoever. If the heart of the issue is tackled instead, then there shouldn't be a need to illegalise guns - accidental shootings would fall by themselves. Purposeful or gang violence would be likely unaffected either way, since it's doubtful they'd abide by the law anyway, so illegalising guns wouldn't stop them.

 d-usa wrote:
Games can cause this kind of thing. That is why they do have ratings on them. Which don' t do jack when somebody buys a game for an 8 year old and lets them play it. More regulations on video-games are not going to fix that, it's stupid parenting.

More gun regulations are also not going to fix this. Requiring 200 hours of safety training, $1000 safety bond for insurance, 6 months waiting period, a 3 round magazine, a trigger lock, and a gun safe isn't going to do anything when somebody goes through all of this and then leaves the gun out where a kid can reach it.

Heck, an illegally purchased fully-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine that is actually locked in a gun-safe is safer than a legally owned single shot .22 pistol that is left out in the open.

Video games can be dangerous and damage young minds. That's why they have ratings. Guns can be dangerous, that's why we have gun laws. Idiots letting an 8 year old have access to both are always going to undermine whatever laws we might pass.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Well there's no point in creating mandatory safety courses and storage laws for firearms, because an 8-year-old that wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun no matter what.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Well there's no point in creating mandatory safety courses and storage laws for firearms, because an 8-year-old that wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun no matter what.

A gun locker, with a proper lock will prevent "an 8-year-old that wants a gun" from getting said guns...

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

 djones520 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

 djones520 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

 djones520 wrote:

Illinois is definitely a nanny-state in swimming regards. It's illegal to go swimming without adult supervision until your are 17 here.

whembly wrote:
Sure, there are cases where the parents walked... But, to say that there's a lack of prosecution is disingenuous.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry thats unconstitutional. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

In some strange chance that my safe pops open, and the locked closet falls apart creating a light of awesome showing my children where the firearms are, they have STILL been taught how dangerous firearms can be and that they have no business touching them when Im not present. My children know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that what that kid did was wrong, dangerous and stupid. Its as simple as teaching them between right and wrong, and setting boundaries that they know they should never cross.

Im not saying my kids are on a higher standing or anything, because I know they are not perfect, but for gak sakes, teaching a child rules and them knowing punishment is abound when they break them is all it takes. Unless the kid is a frigging psychopath. Then Im sorry but there isnt much you can do with crazy

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Even if it became the law for all guns to be stored in a gun safe when not in use it would do nothing to prevent this.

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

We should definitely promote gun safety, but making it a law is going to do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry thats unconstitutional. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

Yeah, who cares about morons having firearms or kids accidentally shooting each other right?

Gotta have dat Constitution protected!

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Even if it became the law for all guns to be stored in a gun safe when not in use it would do nothing to prevent this.

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

All it means is that if someone was found to have stored the gun improperly they will suffer prosecution, but that will only happen after any damage has already been done.


a gun accident is all the enforcement needed. The punishment for leaving a gun out is the tragedy of an accidental shooting.

We should definitely promote gun safety, but making it a law is going to do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

On another take of that, a family friend of mine regularly plays Halo with his boys, about the same age as KCs. The thing is, he is playing WITH them, not saying, "here's halo, have fun", he is actively engaged in what they are doing. Each person has their own way of raising their kids, and so long as they dont end up like the OP, and end up a "contributing member of society" then, I think you have succeeded as a parent.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

No, because the government will have no right to come into our homes to check to see if our firearms are in a safe.

God help us if they ever do.

Yet it's acceptable for people to have to give up the right of doctor/patient confidentiality--but not the opportunity for a simple search with limited scope?

It speaks volumes of what is considered 'acceptable'.

So you want warrantless searches of houses now? Why how Stazi like of you. I'll go ahead and cancel that ACLU membership.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Why do that when it's not a significant problem?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.


I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

Recently My cousin and her kids where at my house. So im a loner so I tayed in my room with thee door open playing Farcry 3. The second oldest boyy kept coming in and trying to watch. Now I do not want them watching me play video games, for various reason, mainly violence. His mother comes in and says it it fine(This kid is in first grade) she doesnt care about violence. But I do. So i have to lie and tell her "It has sex in it" and she stops. For some reason violence doesn't upset us. We think of it as everyday stuff.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Da krimson barun wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I don't remember getting points for capping grannies in GTA IV...

It was GTA 3.This was entirely the fault of whoever put the gun where it was,And whoever bought a game that you need to be 18 to play and gave it to a 8 year old.

It was GTA IV for the Playstation III (At least that's what the article says).

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

 KingCracker wrote:

Quick thinking, and nicely averted! It is sad that our country says 'meh' to violence, but don't show dem boobies!!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

I AM RESPONSIBLE WITH MY GUNS!

So what gives you the right to say the gestapo feds can walk into my home whenever they want?

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
You're advocating intrusive warrantless searches for prosecutable offenses, and your saying it's ok because the homeowner can supervise it.

You do realize there is a 4th Amendment for a reason. This goes beyond 2nd Amendment issues here.

The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement that a warrant be supported by "probable cause" and judicially sanctioned.

It is not a blanket protection against government intervention.

I'm frankly appalled you are arguing this.

And I am appalled at the protections that gun owners demand. You want a gun? You goddamned better be willing to be responsible for it.

I AM RESPONSIBLE WITH MY GUNS!

So what gives you the right to say the gestapo feds can walk into my home whenever they want?

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

You're ok with warrantless house searches and wonder why that might be compared to the secret police? Seriously?

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure, equate what I've suggested (the opportunity for random supervised by the homeowner/residents inspections of firearms safes) with the GDR's police force.

That's totally a valid comparison.

You're ok with warrantless house searches and wonder why that might be compared to the secret police? Seriously?

For someone who is supposed to be so intelligent, you have a poor grasp as to what exactly you are creating comparisons to.

The Stasi did not perform "warrantless house searches". They had informants everywhere, they would drill holes into apartments and run video recording equipment and other various ways of completely and utterly invading every scrap of privacy that an individual could ever expect to have.

You are comparing the ability for a law enforcement agency to--once a month or any other potential timeframe--come, unannounced, and request your cooperation to ensure that you are storing your firearms correctly and safely to the atmosphere of fear that the Stasi generated.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

Cool. Get 2/3 of the states to approve it then we'll talk.
Of course we'll have to disarm the police first. There are after all too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a serious responsibility from police related shootings and accidental discharges.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Heh. Germany actually HAS laws that allow for an inspection of the (lawfully required) gun safe of a homeowner by police officers. The LEOs need "reasonable and grounded doubts" to do this and have to write to the homeowner first with a formal enquiry about how his guns are secured. Following that, it is possible that they require homeowners to be given access to the gun storage to examine the safety features and determine whether they are working according to law.


I guess we are dern ferrener communists when it comes to guns, eh.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Social services are allowed to do unannounced visits for foster children to ensure that the children are safe, so why not allow for such a thing with firearms and children in the same household?

Because that is in violation of the 4th amendment (and other ones I'm sure).... The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Not, "the right to bear arms, unless you are an idiot, and don't know how to store weapons round minors"

And, in the case of foster parents, that is something that they sign on with. When I purchased my firearms, I did not sign anything that said, Please come into my house whenever you'd like to "inspect" my firearms at will.

I have my biological children, the government has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate how they are raised, nor how my firearms are stored.

Maybe it's time something changed then.

There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

Cool. Get 2/3 of the states to approve it then we'll talk.
Of course we'll have to disarm the police first. There are after all too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a serious responsibility from police related shootings and accidental discharges.

I wouldn't agree with disarming the police, but I would agree with the fact that there is far too much irresponsibility when it comes to police and firearms.

Must be an isolated thing, since it doesn't happen with private citizens right?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

No there are not. There are a small number of accidental injuries/deaths. You're just getting caught up in it emotionally and not seeing that, while there are children being killed, it is still a very small number and not a large problem.

That number of deaths per year does not convince me that we need to tell every gun owner to purchase a gun safe, to allow police in to my home for no reason, and to charge me with a crime should I fail to lock my gun away despite having no children in my home.

While unfortunate, it is not a significant problem.

 Frazzled wrote:

police would have to be disarmed, following your logic. Its just irresponsible otherwise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There are far too many accidental firearms injuries/deaths for what is supposed to be a "serious responsibility" that requires a "rigorous vetting process" to obtain a firearm.

No there are not. There are a small number of accidental injuries/deaths. You're just getting caught up in it emotionally and not seeing that, while there are children being killed, it is still a very small number and not a large problem.

That number of deaths per year does not convince me that we need to tell every gun owner to purchase a gun safe, to allow police in to my home for no reason, and to charge me with a crime should I fail to lock my gun away despite having no children in my home.

While unfortunate, it is not a significant problem.

You can think I am emotional all you want. You would be wrong however.

The simple fact of the matter is that however you try to spin it, there are irresponsible individuals who have access to tools designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings (or animals) and do not safeguard those tools responsibly.
If they were the only ones to pay the price for that lack of responsibility? I would not see an issue.
But that is not the case.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, sure. Make people that leave guns out where kids can get them responsible for any harm caused by their negligence. O'Wait, wouldn't this already fall under Criminal Negligence?

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

I'll help. Pull up the Bill of Rights. Its the second one.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

I'll help. Pull up the Bill of Rights. Its the second one.

wikipedia summation and quote of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 wrote:"the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but the level of that restriction is up for debate.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but the level of that restriction is up for debate.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Right now it errs on the side of the gun owners versus the government. Who is to say that an interpretation by the USSC might not allow for broader restrictions when it comes to safety concerns?

Right now felons cannot own firearms. Why not apply that same standard to morons?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

No they can't...

 Kanluwen wrote:
I do not think "putting a number on it" is something which should be done, nor do I think that it should be every single firearms owner, ever.
Just those with children or who regularly serve as caretakers for children.

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

The ignorance of our Constitution and how it works in this thread is simply staggering.

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

I do not think "putting a number on it" is something which should be done, nor do I think that it should be every single firearms owner, ever who should be subjected to "surprise inspections".
Just those with children or who regularly serve as caretakers for children.

I will clarify a bit further though:
If an individual feels they are being unfairly targeted in the course of these "surprise inspections" they should be able to file harassment charges against the agency in charge, and any evidence obtained in the course of these inspections(excluding plain sight) should be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

 whembly wrote:
Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are still catching a LOT of people with that restriction.

And again, how would this be enforced except after the fact? It would require a national registry of gun owners, which would then be cross referenced with birth certificates.


You would be putting reproductive limitations on anybody with guns who doesn't yet have kids, and putting gun ownership restrictions on those who have kids but don't yet have guns.

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

See the ethical ramifications of this? Not enough people get hurt to make this worthwhile. And furthermore, those that do get hurt have already received their punishment.


The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe not, but it was intended to be a very difficult to change article with borderline magical powers. Otherwise, it would be pointless to have a ultimate authority to appeal to that was as fluid and changing as the sea.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe not, but it was intended to be a very difficult to change article with borderline magical powers. Otherwise, it would be pointless to have a ultimate authority to appeal to that was as fluid and changing as the sea.

You know, I am pretty sure there have been a number of amendments to it over time... at least two anyway... I am sure there could be others in the future... even ones cancelling previous amendments or bits of the original constitution

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

That's not a punishment. That is something which has changed your environment.

YOU do not--generally--get put on trial in criminal court. You might find yourself being hit by a civil lawsuit, but that's weregild.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

If it's okay for voters to be forced to go through a bunch of bs (and have to deal with the nonsense of actually being able to be CHALLENGED by other voters questioning their "eligibility to vote" at the poll) to be able to vote, you can suck it up if you want to have a gun.

Deal with it.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

They are not the ones who pay the consequence though, now are they?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

If it's okay for voters to be forced to go through a bunch of bs (and have to deal with the nonsense of actually being able to be CHALLENGED by other voters questioning their "eligibility to vote" at the poll) to be able to vote, you can suck it up if you want to have a gun.

Deal with it.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

They are not the ones who pay the consequence though, now are they?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

That's not a punishment. That is something which has changed your environment.

YOU do not--generally--get put on trial in criminal court. You might find yourself being hit by a civil lawsuit, but that's weregild.

Losing your kid because you were stupid isn't punishment? Losing your own life isn't punishment? Having your kids best friend killed isn't punishment?

Do you think the only punishments that can be received are those in a court of law?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

Hey, I'm not suggesting it wouldn't cause (another) civil war if someone got into office (or a large extreme party seized power) and started imprisoning other politicians and officials before handing out decrees, but it is not like the history of the US is entirely free of revolutions against the duely appointed government

I'm just saying the constitution is a human construct... pretending it has magical universal powers and is protected from anything that would seek to change it is silly and dangerous.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

If it's okay for voters to be forced to go through a bunch of bs (and have to deal with the nonsense of actually being able to be CHALLENGED by other voters questioning their "eligibility to vote" at the poll) to be able to vote, you can suck it up if you want to have a gun.

Deal with it.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

They are not the ones who pay the consequence though, now are they?

This is getting extremely off topic at this point, but would officers also be subject to random gun ownership inspections?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

If it's okay for voters to be forced to go through a bunch of bs (and have to deal with the nonsense of actually being able to be CHALLENGED by other voters questioning their "eligibility to vote" at the poll) to be able to vote, you can suck it up if you want to have a gun.

Deal with it.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

They are not the ones who pay the consequence though, now are they?

Would you be okay with all of these restrictions you are proposing to gun owners also affecting things that cause the same or more amount of deaths?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

That's not a punishment. That is something which has changed your environment.

YOU do not--generally--get put on trial in criminal court. You might find yourself being hit by a civil lawsuit, but that's weregild.

Losing your kid because you were stupid isn't punishment? Losing your own life isn't punishment? Having your kids best friend killed isn't punishment?

Do you think the only punishments that can be received are those in a court of law?

The only ones which serve as an example to society as a whole are, yes.

That is the whole bloody point of a codified system of justice. Not to say "Oh, you lost your child because of your own stupidity/irresponsibility. We're not going to press charges because clearly you're being emotionally punished." and failing to utilize the criminal courts to hand down a sentence that serves as an example of a punishment for disobeying the laws.
If they can prosecute drunk drivers who killed their friends in the process of drunk driving, then a parent who had their child killed or had a child who killed another child as the result of irresponsible gun ownership is just as able to be prosecuted.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Would you be okay with all of these restrictions you are proposing to gun owners also affecting things that cause the same or more amount of deaths?

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

Or maybe "there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny" is true, and that is the reason why she shouldn't have had that game at 8 years old.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

Ah, so now it's about prosecution and not death rate.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where are all the tweens swearing their hearts out on Battlefield/Call of Duty and their murder sprees?

There's no provable correlation, beyond what the gun lobby likes to trot out in cases like this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

Ah, so now it's about prosecution and not death rate.

It's always been about prosecution and responsibility for me, to be frank.

The death rate and the lack of prosecution however are tied inextricably together.

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

Or maybe "there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny" is true, and that is the reason why she shouldn't have had that game at 8 years old.

Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
This is getting extremely off topic at this point, but would officers also be subject to random gun ownership inspections?

I'm okay with it if they have children--and provided they are inspected by a law enforcement entity other than their own.

d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

Or maybe "there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny" is true, and that is the reason why she shouldn't have had that game at 8 years old.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

Or maybe "there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny" is true, and that is the reason why she shouldn't have had that game at 8 years old.

So where are all the tweens swearing their hearts out on Battlefield/Call of Duty and their murder sprees?

There's no provable correlation, beyond what the gun lobby likes to trot out in cases like this.

 Deadshot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Not only that, the "probe led us to believe there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny with no remorse" sounds like BS. Just another attempt to ban violent video games he shouldn't have had at 8 years old. And probably trying to revoke the gun laws over there too

Or maybe "there is a connection between violent video games and murdering your granny" is true, and that is the reason why she shouldn't have had that game at 8 years old.

I believe that people are born killers, nothing can nurture them to be that way. They have the killer instinct from birth and will kill someone, either themselves or usually someone else. So its my belief that that connection is utter crap. And that's just my belief and no amount or debate will change that so don't waste your time trying.

 Deadshot wrote:
I believe that people are born killers, nothing can nurture them to be that way. They have the killer instinct from birth and will kill someone, either themselves or usually someone else. So its my belief that that connection is utter crap. And that's just my belief and no amount or debate will change that so don't waste your time trying.

 d-usa wrote:
they better have a warrant before they come on in.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

Ah, so now it's about prosecution and not death rate.

It's always been about prosecution and responsibility for me, to be frank.

The death rate and the lack of prosecution however are tied inextricably together.

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
they better have a warrant before they come on in.

What's to stop the police being able to obtain a warrent to check on the storage of guns anyway?

Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
This is getting extremely off topic at this point, but would officers also be subject to random gun ownership inspections?

I'm okay with it if they have children--and provided they are inspected by a law enforcement entity other than their own.

Okay, that's a fair rub, though I would still be hesitant of possible leniency shown to cops by other cops because cops. I'm not saying it will happen, I would just wish to have them done with a greater scrutiny than other gun owners with kids, and would hope that they know what's at stake if they leave their firearms in an easy to access place.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

Ah, so now it's about prosecution and not death rate.

It's always been about prosecution and responsibility for me, to be frank.

The death rate and the lack of prosecution however are tied inextricably together.

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

I don't have any off hand. If you want to find some be my guest.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Most things that are "causing the same or more amount of deaths" are already regulated/prosecutable when they cause deaths.

Ah, so now it's about prosecution and not death rate.

It's always been about prosecution and responsibility for me, to be frank.

The death rate and the lack of prosecution however are tied inextricably together.

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

I don't have any off hand. If you want to find some be my guest.

I'm not the one using them to back my argument, so I guess I'll wait.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

There are already laws saying you can't have drugs in your house. It's more or less a given that police can't get warrants to check for illegal drugs.

Without probable cause that is.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The simple problem is that there are no hard and fast facts relating to prosecution rates for negligent storage of firearms. In one area of the US it might be considered "criminal negligence" while in another it might be considered something else.

You are better off searching news sites than actually looking for the documentation.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

There are already laws saying you can't have drugs in your house. It's more or less a given that police can't get warrants to check for illegal drugs.

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The simple problem is that there are no hard and fast facts relating to prosecution rates for negligent storage of firearms. In one area of the US it might be considered "criminal negligence" while in another it might be considered something else.

You are better off searching news sites than actually looking for the documentation.

Ah, so the problem is the low rate of prosecution, but you don't know the actual rate of prosecution. Makes sense

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's always been about prosecution and responsibility for me, to be frank.

The death rate and the lack of prosecution however are tied inextricably together.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
I believe that people are born killers, nothing can nurture them to be that way. They have the killer instinct from birth and will kill someone, either themselves or usually someone else. So its my belief that that connection is utter crap. And that's just my belief and no amount or debate will change that so don't waste your time trying.

You are of course referring to those that kill people yes? As I'm sure many hunters on this site have killed animals, I'm sure that a few of our soldiers have killed enemy combatants, and yet I'm sure none of them feel okay doing so when confronted with the thought off doing this to a human, as most hunters I know enjoy the sport of it, and use what they can of the creature they kill (namely the meat and hide, occasionally the bones and other pieces too).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The simple problem is that there are no hard and fast facts relating to prosecution rates for negligent storage of firearms. In one area of the US it might be considered "criminal negligence" while in another it might be considered something else.

You are better off searching news sites than actually looking for the documentation.

Ah, so the problem is the low rate of prosecution, but you don't know the actual rate of prosecution. Makes sense

I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to disprove my statement then go right ahead. Find me some evidence.

Whembly tried to do that already to prove that the "rate of prosecution" is higher than I claim, and only could come up with two separate instances both in California.

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

There are already laws saying you can't have drugs in your house. It's more or less a given that police can't get warrants to check for illegal drugs.

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

There are already laws saying you can't have drugs in your house. It's more or less a given that police can't get warrants to check for illegal drugs.

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The simple problem is that there are no hard and fast facts relating to prosecution rates for negligent storage of firearms. In one area of the US it might be considered "criminal negligence" while in another it might be considered something else.

You are better off searching news sites than actually looking for the documentation.

Ah, so the problem is the low rate of prosecution, but you don't know the actual rate of prosecution. Makes sense

I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to disprove my statement then go right ahead. Find me some evidence.

Whembly tried to do that already to prove that the "rate of prosecution" is higher than I claim, and only could come up with two separate instances both in California.

You made the statement, its up to you to back it up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The simple problem is that there are no hard and fast facts relating to prosecution rates for negligent storage of firearms. In one area of the US it might be considered "criminal negligence" while in another it might be considered something else.

You are better off searching news sites than actually looking for the documentation.

Ah, so the problem is the low rate of prosecution, but you don't know the actual rate of prosecution. Makes sense

I'm not going to do your research for you. You want to disprove my statement then go right ahead. Find me some evidence.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the fact that Whembly could only find two cases of prosecution backs me up.

 d-usa wrote:
So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the fact that Whembly could only find two cases of prosecution backs me up.

So Whembly is your source?

 Alfndrate wrote:
What if the police come to check my house to see if I'm storing my guns legally but see my very illegal meth lab in the works, can they arrest me?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument. I don't have to cite a single damned source if I cannot readily find it in my history.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

There are already laws saying you can't have drugs in your house. It's more or less a given that police can't get warrants to check for illegal drugs.

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

Not "the legal ownership of something". The "legal ownership of something in accordance with the laws you have agreed to in order to possess that something".
You have to get your car certified, so why not your gun storage?

I should add that while I'm not worried about you in particular, D-usa, there are plenty of parents who might not be as cautious.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument. I don't have to cite a single damned source if I cannot readily find it in my history.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot fewer people had weapons back then, and they weren't military style.

The obsession with "assault weapons" on both sides of the gun debate is an indicator of the change in the psychological drives for weapon ownership.

Does the cosmetic style of a firearm affect the lethality of the round it fires?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

If part of the social and legal contract you sign when purchasing and using firearms is that you are open to having the authorities check you are storing them correctly, then I would expect the police, or whatever other agency, to have the legal ability to come and check that your firearms are stored correctly. The same way I would expect the mechanics who issue my MOT certificate to ensure that my vehicle is safe to drive when my MOT certificate needs renewing. Though understandably I have to take my car to them, rather than them coming to my house to check it, and the authorities would have to come to your house to check your gun storage, because, you know, that is where it is.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument. I don't have to cite a single damned source if I cannot readily find it in my history.

Seriously... is it the fact that there's a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths?

If so, you do have a point. The question is, how should we mitigate these future ocurances?

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm pretty sure the fact that Whembly could only find two cases of prosecution backs me up.

So Whembly is your source?

Woah... o.O

Since when did I level up?

 d-usa wrote:

I'm okay with somebody having to certify gun storage when they buy a gun, bring in your receipt for your gun safe when you buy a gun as an example. I might even support a law that lets gun dealers (and others) become "certified gun safe installers" or something like that, and then let them issue "gun storage certificates" that would be a requirement for purchasing a weapon (as long as licenses and certificates are not priced to actually discourage ownership).

But I wound't support a law letting the cops into my house "just to check" my guns.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument. I don't have to cite a single damned source if I cannot readily find it in my history.

Seriously... is it the fact that there's a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths?

If so, you do have a point. The question is, how should we mitigate these future ocurances?

I don't think it's simply a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths. I think it is under reported as a whole, including "accidental firearms discharges".

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So there should be a law allowing the police access to my house to check the legal ownership of something, when we do not have any laws allowing police access to just check to see if I have anything illegal?

If part of the social and legal contract you sign when purchasing and using firearms is that you are open to having the authorities check you are storing them correctly, then I would expect the police, or whatever other agency, to have the legal ability to come and check that your firearms are stored correctly. The same way I would expect the mechanics who issue my MOT certificate to ensure that my vehicle is safe to drive when my MOT certificate needs renewing. Though understandably I have to take my car to them, rather than them coming to my house to check it, and the authorities would have to come to your house to check your gun storage, because, you know, that is where it is.

And there is the reason why it will never get the support needed to pass a bill like that. Because even liberals have a problem with letting the cops search your house without a warrant.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

Er..it hasn't actually.
The Stazi reference is to that whole: well if there've been some accidents then the government should have unfettered access to search you house at any time on its whim.
Best muzzle your dogs too. We'll shoot 'em.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

No they can't...

Sure they can.

Is it likely to happen? No.

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Last I checked this is not a scholarly argument. I don't have to cite a single damned source if I cannot readily find it in my history.

Seriously... is it the fact that there's a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths?

If so, you do have a point. The question is, how should we mitigate these future ocurances?

I don't think it's simply a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths. I think it is under reported as a whole, including "accidental firearms discharges".

Um... okay... I'm with ya.

In an effort to teach kids, how about we encourage elementary schools to have the Eddie Eagle course?

 Frazzled wrote:
The Constitution is not a mere law boyo.

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

The ignorance of our Constitution and how it works in this thread is simply staggering.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Quick question: aren't there controlled substances where the legal possession of said substance means that the authorities can come to check that you are storing it correctly and legally at any time? I thought it was that way with one of the chemicals they can use to make meth, which farmers store in largish quantities. (Anhydrous?) Not super 'in-the-know' about such things, but meth is a big deal around here, and I seem to recall hearing some farmer complaining about this.

Total side note, having read the article, is that I don't think I would be too terribly opposed to a tax on violent video games, with the money earmarked for victims' relief, provided it was A) a reasonable amount of money and B) that it actually got the opposition to video violence to agree that it was a reasonable compromise on the issue. I mean, at sixty to seventy dollars a pop, an extra dollar or two isn't going to be much skin off my nose, especially not if the money is going to a decent cause as well as keeping the fuss down.

That's just my thought on it, though, and this isn't a nation where we readily accept new taxes, so I don't see that having much of an effect.

Do some states require that all weapons sold come with a gun-lock? I think my last few weapons I purchased came with them included, but I don't know if that was just a courtesy or if it is to comply with some laws .