http://wkrn.com/2015/10/04/8-year-old-girl-dies-in-east-tenn-shooting-police-arrest-11-yr-old-suspect/ wrote:
WHITE PINE, Tenn. (WATE) – A shooting Sunday morning in White Pine left an 8-year-old girl dead and an 11-year-old boy arrested on first-degree murder charges.
Jefferson County Sheriff G.W “Bud” McCoig said the boy shot the girl in the chest with a 12-gauge shotgun from inside his home along Robin Road. Sheriff McCoig added that the gun belonged to the boy’s father. The boy’s name is not being released at this time.
According to her mother, Latasha Dyer, McKayla was found lying on the ground with a gunshot wound to her chest. She was taken to Morristown-Hamblen hospital, where she later died.
“She was a precious little girl, she was a mommy’s girl, no matter how bad of a mood you were in she could always make you smile,” Dyer said.
She added that her daughter was outside playing when her next door neighbor, an 11-year-old boy, asked to see her puppy. She said her daughter told the boy “no,” and shortly after the, 11-year-old boy shot her. The shooting wasn’t the first time their family had problems with the boy, according to Dyer.
“When we first moved to White Pine, the little boy was bullying McKayla,” she said.
“He was making fun of her, calling her names just being mean to her. I had to go the principal about him and he quit for a while and then all of a sudden yesterday he shot her.”
WATE reached out to the boy’s family for comment, but received no answer. Dyer said she’s heartbroken and their entire family is devastated.
“I want her back in my arms, this is not fair, hold and kiss you’re babies every night because you’re never promised the next day with them,” said Dyer.
“I hope the little boy learned his lesson because he took my baby’s life and I can’t get her back.”
Both children were White Pine Elementary students, according to Sheriff McCoig.
I mean... wtf? Seriously. WTF?
You can teach your kids gun safety, you can threaten them with all kinds of things if you ever catch them playing with your guns, but all of that goes out the window when your kid has access to your firearms (gun cabinet/case/locker or not) and kills some neighbor over some childish BS. WTF... just... WTF?!?
Well, that's fething horrible. What maladjusted monster of a child would do that anyway? I can't really think of a time I deliberately hurt another living thing until I was, maybe, 14 or 15.
Hey man, dakka has taught me that kids know exactly what they're doing and can understand the consequences of their actions as well as adults, if not better. Also that we should not waste time before turning a tragedy into political points.
What about a mandatory automatically resetting bear trap as part of each trigger lock?
Automatically Appended Next Post: This place is a misfortune of opinion.
So long as it stays reasonably around 'trigger locks' and 'sealed gun storage' territory it should manage to keep its head above water. I think I'd be right in saying that most people--pro-gun or no-gun--are more or less agreed on the need to safely secure guns, even if they disagree on ownership.
This is definitely a case where a simple secured gun cabinet would've prevented anything from happening. If a kid can access a firearm, then it's not being stored properly.
Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.
You could pass more laws with regards to penalties that make the owner of the weapon also liable for the crimes committed with them (similar to social hosting kind of laws), but I would imagine that current laws regarding negligence and the like may already cover situations like that depending on the state where it happens.
My last two guns all came with the loop-lock thing that goes through the gun (which is a bigger pain in the rear to use than a trigger lock), but they were included in the box. (Is it California that requires them or something like that which makes it just easier to include in all the boxes instead of only shipping certain boxes to certain states?) Maybe you can expand the laws and make it a requirement that all gun sales include a gun lock (but what about second hand sales, would the store be required to include them?), but I don't know that it would make a difference. I know our county sheriff and our local PD both give away free gun-locks to anyone that wants one.
In the end you can make trigger locks as abundant as you want them (included with weapons, free at law enforcement agencies, complimentary gun-lock every January 1st to every house in the country) but they are useless unless people use them.
If children do not have the respect for firearms that they deserve then firearms should not be left unsecured. This is a pointless loss of life because the parents of the boy did not see able to impart the wisdom to him that pointing a firearm at someone (when not in danger of being harmed) is not acceptable.
That is my fear also. I hope that this thread remains civil.
d-usa wrote: Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.
You could pass more laws with regards to penalties that make the owner of the weapon also liable for the crimes committed with them (similar to social hosting kind of laws), but I would imagine that current laws regarding negligence and the like may already cover situations like that depending on the state where it happens.
My last two guns all came with the loop-lock thing that goes through the gun (which is a bigger pain in the rear to use than a trigger lock), but they were included in the box. (Is it California that requires them or something like that which makes it just easier to include in all the boxes instead of only shipping certain boxes to certain states?) Maybe you can expand the laws and make it a requirement that all gun sales include a gun lock (but what about second hand sales, would the store be required to include them?), but I don't know that it would make a difference. I know our county sheriff and our local PD both give away free gun-locks to anyone that wants one.
In the end you can make trigger locks as abundant as you want them (included with weapons, free at law enforcement agencies, complimentary gun-lock every January 1st to every house in the country) but they are useless unless people use them.
I think most gun owners, while agreeing that properly storing firearms is important, would place some emphasis on raising your kid so they don't go and murder some other kid. 11 year olds aren't bumbling toddlers anymore, and there's always a chance they'll find their way into a locked and secured cabinet if they're determined to do so. You can't rely purely on physical security systems. It's kind of like the manual safety on a firearm; your trigger finger is your safety, not the mechanical safety. The mechanical safety is just a backup. Safe handling is far more important.
I have one gun that isn't locked up but my kids can NOT get access to it and it isn't loaded but I can load it very quickly if need be everything else is locked up in the safe. Leaving a loaded 12 gauge out is just asking for trouble and having a little F&c& for a kid is just fuel to the fire!
hotsauceman1 wrote: I sure as hell hope the family puts the boys parents on the street for this.
The Father and/or Mother should be charged with Criminal Negligence.
That should be the least of what they are charged with.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Sad story. Kid sounds like a monster...hopefully he's tried as an adult.
There are no such things as monsters, only people. In this case a child. This is a tragedy but society won't get anything out of looking for more blood than has already been spilled. We're not going to deter some rash of potential 11-year old shooters by trying this kid as an adult, or keep anyone safer than we would with rehabilitation. The only thing you're calling for is even more human suffering.
@d-USA - I've bought all of mine in ohio or Kentucky and they've all come with trigger locks. Shotguns, handguns, and rifles alike.
Mine were all Oklahoma purchased.
I just thought that there was a particular state that required them (for stuff like that California just always comes to mind) and that is why they were included in all of them to make logistics easier.
Was the ammo kept with it or something? Maybe keep them apart as well. :/
Clearly something needed to be done about the kid before this, but it could have went down the "precious little snowflake can do no wrong it's just a phase" crap.
Chongara wrote: The only thing you're calling for is even more human suffering.
I'm actually okay with that in this instance.
That's awful.
regardless of whatever hope for people anyone may have there are many people in this world, and the U.S.A. produces a lot of them, that are irrevocably broken and no amount of therapy or help from outside will help them. Therapy, will only teach them ways to hide what they are better, and to manipulate others with greater success, medication only sedates them and makes them useless. An 11-year old is a kid, but is not innocent and idyllic and unaware of their actions. If the response from an 11-year old, when told they can't play with someones puppy is to go get a gun and shoot them then they are never ever going to be okay. I most assure you there are people that do not work like others, they do not have feelings the way other people do- and never ever will. No amount of therapy, medication, or time will fix them.
And yes, you cannot enforce people locking their guns up, however much like cell phones you can post penalize people for breaking a law without enforcing it prior. So yeah, there should be a law requiring all guns to be locked up at all times when not in use by the lawful owner. In cases like this, the owner should be held negligent. Do you need to actively check peoples guns? Nope, will it cause more people to actually lock their guns up if they can be at fault should something messed up happen? Yes.
@d-USA - I've bought all of mine in ohio or Kentucky and they've all come with trigger locks. Shotguns, handguns, and rifles alike.
Mine were all Oklahoma purchased.
I just thought that there was a particular state that required them (for stuff like that California just always comes to mind) and that is why they were included in all of them to make logistics easier.
In Washington State, I've never had to buy a trigger lock with a weapon.
blaktoof wrote: So yeah, there should be a law requiring all guns to be locked up at all times when not in use by the lawful owner.
Define "use". What if I have a gun that I have for self-defense? and thus need it to be ready to fire at all times. I can't really keep that locked up, even the fastest locks take a few seconds to disengage and then a few seconds to load. Thats seconds I might not have.
@d-USA - I've bought all of mine in ohio or Kentucky and they've all come with trigger locks. Shotguns, handguns, and rifles alike.
Mine were all Oklahoma purchased.
I just thought that there was a particular state that required them (for stuff like that California just always comes to mind) and that is why they were included in all of them to make logistics easier.
In Washington State, I've never had to buy a trigger lock with a weapon.
Found it, it's actually a federal law: The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act wrote:(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
Section 921(a)(34) wrote: The term “secure gun storage or safety device” means—
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.
cincydooley wrote: Based on the kid it sounds like they were gakky parents to begin with.
You might be surprised to hear that this time I agree. Sounds like an anti-social kid with gakky parents. I don't really have a big issue with shotguns, especially in Middle-of-nowhere, Tennessee.
There might be something to say about attitudes toward violence and guns. It's strange that we live in a world where nipples are banned, while half of all movies feature protagonists killing other people with guns. And no one ever feels bad about shootings in films. We never get to see the mother of storm trooper #359 crying over his childhood photos. That might be a problem, and might have contributed to this kid and his parents not having more respect for what was in their home, and the devastation it has caused. But I don't think there is an awful lot to say about gun control.
d-usa wrote: Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.
It's not impossible to enforce, it's just political suicide in the US in 2015. All you'd have to do is require all guns to be registered and make one condition of owning a gun be that you voluntarily agree to police inspections of your gun storage at any time. And if the police knock on your door and your guns aren't locked up all of your guns are confiscated, you are permanently banned from owning a gun again, and you get fines and/or jail time. It might not catch every violation, but the vast majority of legal gun owners would be very careful about how they store their toys.
And as a second-best alternative you just impose serious fines/prison time/loss of gun ownership if your gun is ever used in a crime and it's found that you didn't store it properly. Again, it doesn't catch every violation, but how many people would take that risk just because they're too lazy to lock their gun in a safe when they aren't using it?
Grey Templar wrote: Define "use". What if I have a gun that I have for self-defense? and thus need it to be ready to fire at all times. I can't really keep that locked up, even the fastest locks take a few seconds to disengage and then a few seconds to load. Thats seconds I might not have.
"Use" = within your immediate possession and supervision. Carrying a gun on your body counts as "use" because it's under your control and you can prevent anyone from using it without your knowledge and approval. But you can't leave an unlocked gun in every room of your house at all times just in case you need one because those guns wouldn't be under your control.
d-usa wrote: Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.
It's not impossible to enforce, it's just political suicide in the US in 2015. All you'd have to do is require all guns to be registered and make one condition of owning a gun be that you voluntarily agree to police inspections of your gun storage at any time. And if the police knock on your door and your guns aren't locked up all of your guns are confiscated, you are permanently banned from owning a gun again, and you get fines and/or jail time. It might not catch every violation, but the vast majority of legal gun owners would be very careful about how they store their toys.
Giving up the 4th to use the 2nd, or giving up the 2nd to use the 4th, is never going to be an option unless you get some serious changes at the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. That's just reality.
And as a second-best alternative you just impose serious fines/prison time/loss of gun ownership if your gun is ever used in a crime and it's found that you didn't store it properly. Again, it doesn't catch every violation, but how many people would take that risk just because they're too lazy to lock their gun in a safe when they aren't using it?
The federal act pretty much gives you civil immunity if your gun was used in a crime and you stored it properly it seems.
d-usa wrote: Giving up the 4th to use the 2nd, or giving up the 2nd to use the 4th, is never going to be an option unless you get some serious changes at the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment. That's just reality.
Not necessarily. Here's an example I'm familiar with: if you're a pilot you consent to FAA inspection of your plane at any time*. Unlike car searches there is no probable cause requirement, an FAA inspector can simply walk up to you in the parking area and demand to see your aircraft registration papers, flight planning, etc. And if they find any violations you will be punished for them. It's not a very popular policy for obvious reasons, but good luck challenging it in court (the FAA almost always wins). So I could see a similar situation working in the case of gun ownership, especially if the scope of the search is explicitly limited to confirming proper gun storage.
*Exact text of the law: Each certificate holder and each person employed by the certificate holder shall allow the Administrator, at any time or place, to make inspections or tests (including en route inspections) to determine the holder's compliance with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, applicable regulations, and the certificate holder's operating certificate, and operations specifications.
...
Whenever, in performing the duties of conducting an inspection, an FAA inspector presents an Aviation Safety Inspector credential, FAA Form 110A, to the pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the certificate holder, the inspector must be given free and uninterrupted access to the pilot compartment of that aircraft.
The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.
San Francisco does have a law that requires that guns be secured inside the home when not in use, and the SCOTUS refused to hear a challenge to the law. But I'm not sure how that law is actually checked or enforced. I doesn't look like it has any specific power to inspect homes and the only way that you can be prosecuted under the law would be if the police are in your home and happen to see an unsecured gun laying around.
On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.
Plenty of jurisdictions have laws regarding the use of your own firearm by someone else in the household, especially children, in the commission of a crime. Looks like California has something to the effect of "access to a firearm in the 1st degree" if your kid shoots someone with your unsecured gun and "access to a firearm in the 3rd degree" if your kid finds your gun and gets his first desk pop.
I think "after the fact" punishments are probably the most likely legal push towards legislating gun safety in regards to our current constitutional landscape.
then you can keep all your guns but just keep them locked and unloaded in your household
That is how it works in the UK. If you want a firearms licence, one condition is that the police inspect and approve your safe storage arrangements, which usually involves installation of a steel locker.
The police can't barge into your home at any time of day or night, though, so if you wanted you could leave loaded guns lying around for the kids to play with. It doesn't tend to happen, perhaps because the restrictions on licences ensure that only people who are quite serious about needing a gun bother to get one, and they have had safety training.
d-usa wrote: The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.
There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.
On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.
I don't know, I think it's a fairly narrow ruling. The DC law required trigger locks when the gun is not being used, not just when it is being stored outside of the owner's possession. You'd have to have a trigger lock on your gun inside your home even if you're carrying that gun in your hand at the time. In fact, by the strict letter of the law (which refers to using a gun for recreational purposes) you'd be breaking the DC law if you took the trigger lock off your gun to use it in self defense. So that clearly would infringe on any right to keep a gun for self defense, and if your interpretation of the second amendment guarantees such a right then the DC trigger lock law is unconstitutional.
But that's not the case with a more sensible storage law since a gun that isn't in your possession isn't very relevant to self defense. The argument would then be essentially limited to "but what if I have to run back and retrieve my gun and removing the lock takes too much time", at which point we might as well get into absurd arguments like "what if I need a SAM site to protect my family from a murderer trying to kill me with a B-52 strike".
Peregrine wrote: There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.
I can't tell if this is something you are actually advocating, or just an exercise in how it could be enforced? I don't think anyone is going to like the idea of police being able to turn up and enter your home without a warrant, and this sounds like a waste of their time.
d-usa wrote: Short of legally requiring that every weapon in your house is secured at all times unless you are actively using it, which would be impossible to enforce, there really isn't much else you can do IMO.
That's the law in the UK, parts of Europe and probably a few other places... Or do people just put their guns down on the kitchen table when they're not using them instead of sticking them in a cabinet?
So long as it stays reasonably around 'trigger locks' and 'sealed gun storage' territory it should manage to keep its head above water. I think I'd be right in saying that most people--pro-gun or no-gun--are more or less agreed on the need to safely secure guns, even if they disagree on ownership.
This is definitely a case where a simple secured gun cabinet would've prevented anything from happening. If a kid can access a firearm, then it's not being stored properly.
You don't even need something high end. I simple lockable locker or metal cabinet is very effective. It won't stop a determined burglar, but its not meant to.
I am not a fan of trigger locks. I am a fan of locked cabinets and safes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ChrisRR wrote: I have one gun that isn't locked up but my kids can NOT get access to it and it isn't loaded but I can load it very quickly if need be everything else is locked up in the safe. Leaving a loaded 12 gauge out is just asking for trouble and having a little F&c& for a kid is just fuel to the fire!
Frazzled wrote: You don't even need something high end. I simple lockable locker or metal cabinet is very effective. It won't stop a determined burglar, but its not meant to.
I am not a fan of trigger locks. I am a fan of locked cabinets and safes.
Got a proper gun safe here too, good thing to have. It's bolted to a wall and somewhat hidden in a corner behind sliding mirror doors so a burglar will first have to notice it, and he'd have to be really determined to get the thing open (as in power tools) and getting it out of the wall would likely take even longer. He'll probably go for the 42'' flatscreen TV instead. Easier to carry, worth a few hundred and a lot less questions.
Yes, the gun in the article should have been secured. But kids aren't stupid - maybe the boy knew where the key to the gun safe was.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Especially if they gave it too the kid incase of a "Home Invader" Scenario.
Which wouldn't be an issue if the parents were responsible or if the kid wasn't a sociopath.
It's a matter of time before they find his cat skeleton collection.
We don't know anything about this kid. Even mentally fit adults will kill in the heat of the moment over something trivial, realize what happened and feel horrible about it all too late. Causing grievous harm to, or killing others is not the sole domain of sociopaths nor is it one they even dominate. When people do terrible things it's generally just that, people doing terrible things driven by the same motivations, emotions and mental processes that make up all of us.
There probably isn't any cat skeleton collection, no gallery of crayon drawings with the world ablaze, no easy explanations. Just an angry kid, who got his hands on a gun and at least in a moment came to the conclusion shooting someone was a good idea. That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset. History is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment. It's terrible, complicated, often avoidable (as it almost certainly seems to have been in this case), but isn't the work of some set of "Others" and holding to that idea isn't useful and just serves to trivializes these kinds of horrible events.
Chongara wrote: That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.
He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.
You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.
d-usa wrote: The difference would probably be that there is no constitutional right to pilot an aircraft. So you can be required to voluntarily agree to certain regulations in exchange for a non-constitutional privilege. People also agree to medical evaluations and testing in exchange for a pilot license as well.
There's no constitutional right to drive a car either, but that hasn't stopped the courts from ruling that it is illegal to search a person's car without permission or probable cause. The key difference seems to be the limited scope of the search (verifying compliance with specific laws related to the activity you're engaged in vs. a general "let's see if there's anything illegal"). And in that case a search with the very narrow scope of verifying that a licensed gun owner is complying with the appropriate storage laws would be on the legal side of that division.
On the other hand SCOTUS ruled against trigger locks in DC vs Heller, so it seems like there is also a precedent towards making it unconstitutional to require someone to disable a firearm.
I don't know, I think it's a fairly narrow ruling. The DC law required trigger locks when the gun is not being used, not just when it is being stored outside of the owner's possession. You'd have to have a trigger lock on your gun inside your home even if you're carrying that gun in your hand at the time. In fact, by the strict letter of the law (which refers to using a gun for recreational purposes) you'd be breaking the DC law if you took the trigger lock off your gun to use it in self defense. So that clearly would infringe on any right to keep a gun for self defense, and if your interpretation of the second amendment guarantees such a right then the DC trigger lock law is unconstitutional.
But that's not the case with a more sensible storage law since a gun that isn't in your possession isn't very relevant to self defense. The argument would then be essentially limited to "but what if I have to run back and retrieve my gun and removing the lock takes too much time", at which point we might as well get into absurd arguments like "what if I need a SAM site to protect my family from a murderer trying to kill me with a B-52 strike".
Even if you were to dismiss the infringement of your 4th amendment rights you still would be allocating an immense amount of resources for a very minor benefit. We don't have to have police randomly inspecting the homes of every gun owner in the country to know if their firearms are being properly stored. If somebody gains improper access to their firearms then we know that they weren't stored correctly and appropriate punishments will be dealt out after that fact has been established. That's how the justice system works, we punish people after they do something wrong, not before.
Additionally, even without the 4th amendment issue, you still can't implement a national policy. Your proposed law wouldn't work on the federal level. Since it needs to be enforced by municipal and/or state police it needs to be passed on a state or municipal level and it's highly unlikely that such laws would be uniformly passed across the country. Even if you wanted to make it a federal law there's not jurisdiction for enforcement because it's possession not commerce, there's no federal license involved in owning a firearm. ATF is in charge of enforcement of the regulations regarding FFLs but even that is pretty lax due to limited resources. In all the years I've had an 03 FFL I've had to keep a log book of purchases or sales I've done via my 03 FFL and ATF can inspect that log book at any time, yet they've never once done so because they have better things to do with their time.
Chongara wrote: That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.
He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.
You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.
Agreed. The boy in question made a conscious decision to undertake a whole chain of actions with the explicit intent of harming the girl next door. This isn't so much a case of gun control as it is a case of parenting control. The boy had decided to harm that girl, if he hadn't had access to the shotgun he would have used a different weapon and could have caused the same tragic result with a knife or a bat or any other lethal implement. If you've raised a child that willing to murder another child in a fit of pique that has everything to do with parenting and only tangentially relates to gun control. We put a lot of restrictions on whether or not somebody can own a firearm, we have comparatively few restrictions on having children and raising children.
Chongara wrote: That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.
He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.
You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.
Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind. It's one emotional tool among many that floats around in our brain every day that we pull out and use, ideally when an appropriate. It competes with other urges, emotions and ways of framing your situation. The things that influence how strong each of these forces is in any given in moment are sometimes entirely under our control, sometimes less so. The sad truth is that even healthy people capable of empathy and that exercise it regularly can still do awful things when some other faculty dominates for a time, or they're dealing with a person that some set of experiences have lead them to put them outside the set of persons they empathize with. Violence is sometimes rationalized, other times it can happen with the attacker coming to true terms with it.
All this is not said the erase seriousness of violence, killing or this case. What I'm saying is that taking simplistic view of it is incorrect, and possibly harmful.
"Kid was sociopath, wouldn't have happened if he wasn't" that's a super simple, super easy, super clean, super not-realistic view of things.
Which wouldn't be an issue if the parents were responsible or if the kid wasn't a sociopath.
It's a matter of time before they find his cat skeleton collection.
Agreed. An 11 year old boy bullying an 8 year old girl? in ancient times when I was young and drag raced mastadons at the local speed strip, the other boys, neighbors, his parents and the local preacher would have beat hell out of him for that.
Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind.
One does not need empathy to not execute an 8 year old. Total lacking of empathy and feelings are indeed a sign of a sociopath.
Chongara wrote: That doesn't take anyone special, it doesn't take a monster, it doesn't take some alien mindset - history is clear record that all it takes is person like any of us, under the wrong circumstances and a lapse in judgment.
He had to go retrieve the gun. Then find the poor victim to shoot her. This is hardly a "heat of the moment" situation.
You have to rationalize that shooting someone is the correct response to being told no, and have, basically, no empathy about it.
Empathy is not this constant ruling force in the human mind. It's one emotional tool among many that floats around in our brain every day that we pull out and use, ideally when an appropriate. It competes with other urges, emotions and ways of framing your situation. The things that influence how strong each of these forces is in any given in moment are sometimes entirely under our control, sometimes less so. The sad truth is that even healthy people capable of empathy and that exercise it regularly can still do awful things when some other faculty dominates for a time, or they're dealing with a person that some set of experiences have lead them to put them outside the set of persons they empathize with. Violence is sometimes rationalized, other times it can happen with the attacker coming to true terms with it.
All this is not said the erase seriousness of violence, killing or this case. What I'm saying is that taking simplistic view of it is incorrect, and possibly harmful.
"Kid was sociopath, wouldn't have happened if he wasn't" that's a super simple, super easy, super clean, super not-realistic view of things.
There's a chasm of difference between being violence responses and murder. You can have empathy and have violent outbursts but deliberately and knowlingly murdering somebody is a different matter entirely. I'm a parent of young kids, I've been a volunteer coach of teams of young kids for years too and you can have normal well adjusted empathetic kids that act up or become violent. It's pretty normal, lots of times kids goof around and somebody does something that the other kid doesn't like and that kid smacks the offending kid. I've seen it with siblings, good friends and total strangers, it's no big deal. An 11 year old that knows how to operate a shotgun, understands that it's a firearm and a lethal weapon that takes the time to go get it and come back and murder a young girl because she won't let him play with her dog is a different story. That's evidence of more problems than just a typical kid that got mad in the moment. The boy in question didn't just get mad and hit the girl right then and there, he decided to murder her, went to get a weapon, came back and killed her.
Even with adults that behavior signifies a whole different level of crime. You can't, as an adult, get mad at somebody or even feel threatened by somebody, leave the scene, get a gun, come back and shoot the other person and then claim it was done in the heat of the moment or in self defense. The decision to leave and come back and the time that elapsed makes it more premeditated. This isn't the case of typical kid misbehaving in the moment, this is a kid that chose to murder another kid over a trivial offense.
The boy in question may not fit the textbook definition of a sociopath or a psychopath and who knows what an evaluation done by a professional might determine. You're right that it's an oversimplification to just chalk this up as the kid being a one in a million evil monster. The kid doesn't have to be deranged or evil, but he's definitely not normal. The vast majority of kids can deal with other kids not sharing their toys upon request without resorting to murder. There is a serious disconnect in regards to proper behavior and values with this kid and that is a reflection on his parents. Children murdering other children is rare, the boy in this case may not have mental health issues but if there isn't something wrong with him due to nature than it's a problem caused by nurture or the lack there of. In either case he's not just a typical normal kid that misbehaved in a moment of anger. Tens of millions of kids are out there in the US right now and they all have angry moments of violence and misbehavior sometimes but only a very rare few choose to murder others and those few atypical murderers are going to have a reason behind their possession of murderous intent.
The bullying certainly doesn't look good, as it shows a pattern of behavior, though it's quite a leap from bullying to murder. As Chongara says, we don't know much about what happened. It could have even been an accident for all we know. Maybe he didn't mean to hit her, or he didn't mean for the gun to go off, or was playing with it and didn't realize it was loaded. There are lots of possibilities besides sociopath.
It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
Yet we already have federal and state laws mandating the inclusions of and use of trigger locks and proper storage of firearms without needing random inspections. And again, the 2nd amendment isn't the be all end all of gun laws. The restrictions and inspections you are advocating require state laws and enforcement. It's not even a federal issue. We already prosecute people who fail to follow gun laws when they're caught breaking them. Random searches would be intrusive, superfluous, impractical, cost prohibitive and unlikely to be passed or enforced on the local and state levels.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".
Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".
Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.
Exactly. Many people these days fail to realise this.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is a unique and exciting one! Let me call the ACLU and tell them, they'll be overjoyed to hear it.
Gun control is like a Rohrschach test on who secretly, even unconsciously, wants to live under Dear Leader. Moderates-nope. But then we get into some of the more exciting and thrilling interpretations of what the government can and should do and BAM! flushed out.
Then of course you have the other extreme with the "If I can't carry an RPG into a stranger's baby shower you're cuttin off mai raights!: pseudo anarchists. Thats of course a two pronged test. This is part A. Part B involves asking them about Jade Helm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alex C wrote: I can just imagine our ~3 county cops going around to practically every house in the 5-6 towns in the county to check we're keeping our guns locked up
You would have to be insane to think such a law would be remotely enforcable, even if it were to somehow be put into effect.
Which it wouldn't, because the resistance would be massive, both on tax (to hire the manpower required) and Constitutional grounds.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".
Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.
Exactly. Many people these days fail to realise this.
Actually when they writers said "well regulated" they had something more along the lines of prune juice in mind.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
In the context of when the Constitution was written, "Well-regulated" did not mean legislation and oversight. It was more along the lines of disciplined and trained. Elite military units would be called "regulated".
Besides, that part of the amendment doesn't apply to the second part. Its the justification for everyone owning guns, we need a pool of armed and trained people to defend ourselves and thus everyone must have the right to own weapons, and that right cannot be infringed.
And in the context you suggest, the majority of modern-day gun owners are neither. However, I would need to see some sort of legal justification to claim that "that part doesn't apply to the next part". Laws are not written, or interpreted, piecemeal.
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is a unique and exciting one! Let me call the ACLU and tell them, they'll be overjoyed to hear it.
Gun control is like a Rohrschach test on who secretly, even unconsciously, wants to live under Dear Leader. Moderates-nope. But then we get into some of the more exciting and thrilling interpretations of what the government can and should do and BAM! flushed out.
Then of course you have the other extreme with the "If I can't carry an RPG into a stranger's baby shower you're cuttin off mai raights!: pseudo anarchists. Thats of course a two pronged test. This is part A. Part B involves asking them about Jade Helm.
Dang it Frazz the first rule of Project Jade Helm is don't talk about Jade Helm. Everyone knows that.
Thats not a piecemeal interpretation, thats how its written.
The Bill of Rights contains exposition text mingled with the actual law it defines.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The bolded half is the justification for the second half of the amendment.
If you were taking a general English class, you'd learn the first is what is called a dependent clause which is modifying the second. The actual law is "The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".
And even if we accept that it is indeed talking about a militia, you have to use the historical definition of militia. Which was every fit individual who could hold and operate a weapon, from the youngest farm boy to the oldest man. According to that, the US Militia consists of 321.6 million people(IE: everyone)
Psienesis wrote: It should be noted that the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment contains "well-regulated". So, yeah, it is feasibly possible, on Constitutional grounds, to require inspection of firearms storage and the like, and would likely not run afoul of the 4th because, again, it's part of upholding the 2nd, and is not, in particular, unreasonable.
Your interpretation of the 4th Amendment is a unique and exciting one! Let me call the ACLU and tell them, they'll be overjoyed to hear it.
Gun control is like a Rohrschach test on who secretly, even unconsciously, wants to live under Dear Leader. Moderates-nope. But then we get into some of the more exciting and thrilling interpretations of what the government can and should do and BAM! flushed out.
Then of course you have the other extreme with the "If I can't carry an RPG into a stranger's baby shower you're cuttin off mai raights!: pseudo anarchists. Thats of course a two pronged test. This is part A. Part B involves asking them about Jade Helm.
Dang it Frazz the first rule of Project Jade Helm is don't talk about Jade Helm. Everyone knows that.
Got it. Ixnay on the Helmetay.
The Truth is Out There!
Much like driving while on a cell phone, this would never need to be actively policed. Police do not need to go by each car with a driver in it on a motor cycle and check if the driver is on a cell phone.
There can just be increased fines/negligence charges for someone who causes an accident and it is found out they were on their cell phone after.
Just like you do not need police or any federal/state agency to actively go house to house to check guns. If there is a gun accident involving your gun, and it comes out that the reason the gun was easily accessible to your drunk house guest / 11 year old sociopath- was because you did not keep it away somewhere- then you can be held accountable.
Much like how many people, not all, choose not to use their cell phone while driving now due to the possibility of increased penalties- more people will lock their guns up if they can be held accountable to some extent if their gun is used in a crime. Obviously if their gun is locked up and someone breaks into the gun cabinet they have done their diligence, but if they left it out on a table in the garage, and the shells are in an unlocked drawer under said table.... maybe they should have locked it up.
Indeed. I still see people on their cell phones all the time in their cars. Of course its not like I was checking before the law went into effect or anything, but I still see quite a few.
If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
I think most legal gun owners are more than comfortable with the notion of firearm education and responsible ownership.
I think most Americans are uncomfortable with being placed on lists based on arbitrary and legal possession and then being subject to random violations of their fourth amendment rights.
It's the same principle as stop and frisk, really. Both are pretty appalling.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
Please google the Bill of Rights. Please google the 4th Amendment.
"if you're not guilty then you have nothing to fear" is the hallmark phrase of the police state.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
I think most legal gun owners are more than comfortable with the notion of firearm education and responsible ownership.
I think most Americans are uncomfortable with being placed on lists based on arbitrary and legal possession and then being subject to random violations of their fourth amendment rights.
It's the same principle as stop and frisk, really. Both are pretty appalling.
At least with Terry stops the police have to be able to articulate their reasoning behind their reasonable suspicion that warranted the stop and even then they are only allowed to do a minial pat down search of outer garmets. The gun storage enforcement inspections that are being proposed in this thread are searches that have neither probable cause or reasonable suspicion because they are not based upon any evidence of a crime but merely upon the registered possession of a firearm. If the police have no evidence that I am NOT storing my firearms properly then they have no reason to believe I'm breaking that law and have no justification for searching my house.
The logical that supports these proposed searches supports the idea that police can search everybody and their homes at any time because if they searched everyone and every home they would, as a mathematical certainty, find somebody or something that is violating a law. Yet police can't do that because that would be a 4th amendment violation.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.
No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)
This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.
That analogy is an absolute load of nonsense in any regards. The grounds for a "stop and frisk" is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
And while we're at it, since the much loved analogy here on Dakka is drunk driving to firearms related deaths?
Roadblocks and other non-targeted traffic stops without reasonable suspicion that people are engaged in some kind of criminal activity(such as drinking and driving) provided there is some form of neutral methodology behind the stops(i.e. testing the people in every car for alcohol or every other car), but some states require there to be some kind of additional provisions like a sign clearly stating "BE PREPARED FOR TRAFFIC STOP" or a patrol car parked with its lights flashing along the road.
Hell, Illinois v. Caballes held that it is not even considered a violation for a drug dog to sniff the exterior of a vehicle that has been stopped in the course of a routine traffic stop so long as it does not "unreasonably prolong the length of the stop".
So, as long as there is some kind of equally applied methodology behind it and the actual check itself is not considered overly burdensome or the person performing the test given a broad scope beyond simply checking the storage of firearms?
The litmus test for having someone whose job it is to check to ensure firearms are stored properly might be less of a slam dunk in the favor of "But it's unconstitutional!" than you think.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
Please google the Bill of Rights. Please google the 4th Amendment.
"if you're not guilty then you have nothing to fear" is the hallmark phrase of the police state.
Yeeeeeeeah...the 4th Amendment applies to unreasonable searches and seizures.
You buy a gun, it's your responsibility to store the gun safely.
The case in this thread? This is something where the father should be tried, criminally, for negligence in storing the firearm properly. A friggin' eleven year old should not be able to get their daddy's shotgun to go shoot their flippin' neighbor for not letting him pet her puppy.
The police should have the right to see if I am lawfully storing my gun as soon as they convince a judge that they have reasonable cause to suspect that I am breaking a law regarding lawful storage of a gun.
Kids get in a lot more trouble with their parents narcotics and alcohol than guns, and I also wouldn't support that you be required to have a locked medicine cabinet and that filling your prescription for narcotics automatically requires you to submit to have your home inspected or that the liquor store scans your ID so that the alcohol commission can come and inspect your liquor cabinet.
If you have a state with gun storage laws and you end up with a person that is inside the home for a legal reason (cable guy, repair man, home health nurse, social worker, missionary, whatever) who sees an unsecured weapon, they should be able to report it and the police should be able to act on that. Or if the police is in the home for another reason (domestic, welfare check, dropped off the kid that broke curfew) they should of course be able to cite you for unsecured weapons if that's the law.
But random inspections, even if I would agree with them, just won't fly with our current laws.
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,
See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.
so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.
No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)
This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,
See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.
so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
d-usa wrote: The police should have the right to see if I am lawfully storing my gun as soon as they convince a judge that they have reasonable cause to suspect that I am breaking a law regarding lawful storage of a gun.
Kids get in a lot more trouble with their parents narcotics and alcohol than guns, and I also wouldn't support that you be required to have a locked medicine cabinet and that filling your prescription for narcotics automatically requires you to submit to have your home inspected or that the liquor store scans your ID so that the alcohol commission can come and inspect your liquor cabinet.
If you have a state with gun storage laws and you end up with a person that is inside the home for a legal reason (cable guy, repair man, home health nurse, social worker, missionary, whatever) who sees an unsecured weapon, they should be able to report it and the police should be able to act on that. Or if the police is in the home for another reason (domestic, welfare check, dropped off the kid that broke curfew) they should of course be able to cite you for unsecured weapons if that's the law.
But random inspections, even if I would agree with them, just won't fly with our current laws.
Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.
Killing other humans with as minimal effort as necessary.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you accept the principle that guns should be securely stored in say a locked cabinet, by law, then you presumably would not oppose a law that allowed your locked cabinet to be inspected by a safety inspector to check it met the regulations.
By the same token we all already accept that it is illegal to have illegal narcotics in your possession or illegally possess a handgun but police can't just stop you and frisk you to check without probable cause. Your proposal endorses the concept that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide and thus must consent to intrusive searches that are nothing more than fishing expeditions. Terry stops are already highly controversial and they are a very limited in scope version of what you are suggesting.
No, my concept is the same as registering a car. You accept that if you own a car, the state has the right periodically to check it for road worthiness in terms of emissions and so on. (I know this isn't the case in all states.)
This doesn't involve random checks, it means you take the car to a testing station.
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
Cars aren't a constitutional right.
I don't think it's really a 2nd amendment issue even. It's not a burden to secure your guns if they are not in use, especially since all guns sold now come with a device to secure it. (Although as demonstrated there is lots of discussion about what constitutes "in use").
It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.
So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?
Why?
And to humor that notion, where would you set these limits?
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station,
See this is why the Brits lost their Empire. Unlike you wussy boys with your "culture" and your "morality," and your "manners" here in America land we drive our houses! They are mobile houses of...FREEDOM.
so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
Methinks you're trolling.
That is how it is done here in the UK.
And thats why my ancestors shot at your ancestors. This of course doesn't explain why my ancestors shot at the Prussians, the Russians, and the Austrians...
It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.
I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.
In my experience, this is where all gun discussion threads eventually come to. Nothing in this country will ever change unless the second amendment is changed, and we don't have the popular will to change the second amendment. So, it's all a bunch of flailing about, ultimately.
As much as I enjoy owning guns, and as much as I enjoy shooting guns, the truth is that I think the second amendment simply no longer works for modern, 2015 America. It's wording and current interpretation by the current SCOTUS simply prevent any real, meaningful reform of gun violence in the US; presuming of course that relatively loose gun availability is a predicate to unusually high levels gun violence which is of course much disputed. (The availability leading to the violence, I mean, not that the US enjoys a level of violence otherwise uncommon in the first world).
That being said, we really do have larger problems in the US - as sad as these events are and as widely covered as they have become, ultimately spree killings, kids shooting siblings with insecure firearms, and sundry others costs of being an American are really sort of insignificant statistically. It would be a shame to overreach in the name of reducing gun violence in the way we have overextended in the name of preventing terrorism post 9/11 (for example).
Da Boss wrote: It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.
Da Boss wrote: It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.
I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.
And who are these "plenty of people" you speak of?? Everyone that I know (granted, not enough to make broad generalizations like you have here) is completely NOT comfortable with mass surveillance at anytime.
Da Boss wrote: It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.
I reckon we should stop calling all these dead people victims and start calling them "acceptable losses" as suggested by another poster.
And who are these "plenty of people" you speak of?? Everyone that I know (granted, not enough to make broad generalizations like you have here) is completely NOT comfortable with mass surveillance at anytime.
Is anyone comfortable with mass surveillance?
Anyone?
Evidently there are those just fine with warrantless searches of homes. Which side are they on? Oh yea...
Frazzled wrote: in ancient times when I was young and drag raced mastadons at the local speed strip, the other boys, neighbors, his parents and the local preacher would have beat hell out of him for that.
Because demonstrating to the child that problems are resolved with violence would certainly have corrected his apparent belief that violence is an appropriate solution to his problems...
Frazzled wrote: in ancient times when I was young and drag raced mastadons at the local speed strip, the other boys, neighbors, his parents and the local preacher would have beat hell out of him for that.
Because demonstrating to the child that problems are resolved with violence would certainly have corrected his apparent belief that violence is an appropriate solution to his problems...
d-usa wrote: It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.
According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.
And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.
If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
Psienesis wrote: If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
Then you are what the law calls ignorant. Its like people make pronouncements about criminal law like the bill of Rights, stare decisis, and 200 years of legal procedure just are smoke in the wind.
The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
Yeah, because our current laws protect the morons who think they have the right to own a frigging arsenal and obscene amounts of ammunition but have no willingness to accept responsibility if their child or family members uses those firearms for the purpose that firearms were designed for.
So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?
Why?
I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
And to humor that notion, where would you set these limits?
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Additionally? Have the Commission of Better Business Bureaus enlisted to start helping crack down on price gouging for ammunition at shooting ranges(the only place, IMO, that should be selling ammunition readily) to offset the inevitable argument of "But what if I like to go target shooting? I go through a lot of ammo that way!".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
In Frazzled's eyes, the fact that a gun was involved and that you want to put the parents on trial for first degree murder.
IMO, this case likely won't be FDM but most likely SDM. It's not reading like it was premeditated or planned in advance, and that's the key factor differentiating the two(in some of the cases you are referring to it comes down to proof that the weapon was placed in a spot where they could acquire it--which constitutes planning/premeditation) but still exists a malicious intent.
The parents? Charge them with involuntary manslaughter as soon as negligence can be proven. Even if the son is convicted on murder charges or gets plead out for insanity or any other number of potential scenarios where the son is punished.
Their negligence led to a death. People on here LOVE to point out that drunk driving is, at best, involuntary manslaughter? Let's start seeing some friggin' convictions for not storing your firearms properly.
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
Why does it matter? Given that most people only have two hands there's a pretty obvious limit on how many guns a person can use at once, so who cares how many other guns they have sitting in their gun safe? If you're willing to allow one gun then owning a hundred more is a negligible increase in risk, assuming those guns are all stored securely. Similarly, after the first few reloads worth of ammunition you've already got more than you can plausibly use at once. Going from a hundred rounds to a million rounds only matters in that it might be a fire hazard to store that much. The "how many guns do you need" argument is nothing more than a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts", not a practical policy argument.
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
Psienesis wrote: The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
People secure things like medicine and house hold products from kids with locks etc, why the hell not deadly firearms?
This is good judgement.
PS. I always wanted a strong room.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
Exactly. the argument is stupid, its designed to interfere with legal users of that right, and it has absolutely no freaking impact on what the supposed intent of the regulation is supposed to be.
Psienesis wrote: The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled.
jhe90 wrote: If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
People secure things like medicine and house hold products from kids with locks etc, why the hell not deadly firearms?
Because in some peoples' minds, they're only seconds away from being brutally murdered by the <insert minority here> they saw wandering around their neighborhood that day.
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
Why does it matter? Given that most people only have two hands there's a pretty obvious limit on how many guns a person can use at once, so who cares how many other guns they have sitting in their gun safe? If you're willing to allow one gun then owning a hundred more is a negligible increase in risk, assuming those guns are all stored securely. Similarly, after the first few reloads worth of ammunition you've already got more than you can plausibly use at once. Going from a hundred rounds to a million rounds only matters in that it might be a fire hazard to store that much. The "how many guns do you need" argument is nothing more than a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts", not a practical policy argument.
No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
Similarly, the first amendment should only cover a book and a newspaper per adult in the house, and enough ink to write a single political letter per week for purposes of lobbying one's representatives.
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
Psienesis wrote: The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled.
Read words more gooder. Here's his exact post-my bold:
If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children, result in deaths? I'll support that.
So the Bill of Rights is a malleable guideline on how much freedom the government may allocate to you, more than a Right under the Constitution. Well you do support the police in all things so, at least you are consistent.
This is why gun reform won't happen. People don't want to be responsible for what happens with the firearms they own, and the consequences of their choices.
The parents of this child failed to secure their weapon, failed to teach their child proper weapon safety, and failed to teach their child that bullying is wrong. As a result, an 8 year old girl is dead because she wouldn't let a bully pet her puppy.
Do we then place the blame squarely on the 11 year old who shot her? If so, what do we charge him with? What sentence can we pass on him to see that justice is served? In what way can we use the courts of law to help ensure that others don't commit the same crimes in the future?
we need to charge the parents as accomplices. If parents knew they'd be charged with their kids for any crimes committed, they might make more effort into keep their guns away from their kids.
also get CPS to take any other kids they have away from them, they are clearly more unfit to be parents than people who give their kids funny names.
Psienesis wrote: The boy walked from the site of the interaction with the girl with the intent to collect the weapon. He collected the weapon from the house. Walked back to the yard where the girl was sitting. Then chose to shoot her.
There have been many cases where Murder-1 was proven because someone walked downstairs to get a knife, returned, and then killed someone with it. The argument being, the plan to acquire and use a weapon was formulated in the walk down and back up, and then put into action.
What makes this scenario any different?
You said the parents were guilty. Bring that to a court of law and the bailiff will wrap you in saran wrap and roll you down the nearest hill*
*Except for Oklahoma, because Oklahoma is really flat.
He said that the parents were guilty of negligence. Don't pretend to not understand semantics, Frazzled.
Read words more gooder. Here's his exact post-my bold:
If we believe that parents are responsible for the actions of their children then, no, I don't believe the parents of this child are guilty of negligence.
I believe they are guilty of murder in the first degree.
Sorry, but it still does not change my point.
If you want to actually hold these people accountable, it isn't with some half-assed "negligence" charge for the firearms. It's actually charging them as a conspiring element in the crime.
He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
Kanluwen wrote: No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
No, it's a cheap shot. You're trying to evoke the stereotype of a redneck gun nut sitting in their anti-Obama bunker on a giant pile of ammunition. There's no factual argument here, it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and an attempt to say "look how horrible these people are".
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
Additional guns and ammunition beyond your proposed limits have a negligible risk of homicide. If you can't kill someone with a pistol, a shotgun, and a few reloads worth of ammunition then having a dozen more shotguns and ten thousand rounds isn't going to make a difference. The only reason to ban the extra guns and ammunition is an emotional argument that "decent people shouldn't want that much", just like the argument that decent people shouldn't want to be able to write more than one political letter per week.
Frazzled wrote: He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
Yeah. It's substantially different in that it's the right thing to do, and you of all people should bloody well know it.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
And?
Precedent gets set by actually being conducted. All it takes is one court actually hearing the case and handing down a judgement and the precedent is there. You know that though, right?
Finger print gun safe, weapons are safe, only the registered user can open, code locked key pads etc can all be opened quickly. How fast can you put in your smart phone pin?
Pistol plus separate magazine, skilled user with that weapon, a few seconds potentially, saftey off, a second at most, a gun can be live if if close enough to said safe in a pretty quick time....
Kanluwen wrote: No, a cheap shot at stereotypical "gun nuts" would be that nobody be allowed to own anything that remotely looks like it could be used to conduct an insurgency against the FEMA camps that Obama is preparing. Or any kind of ammunition which has the word "zombie" in promotional material.
No, it's a cheap shot. You're trying to evoke the stereotype of a redneck gun nut sitting in their anti-Obama bunker on a giant pile of ammunition. There's no factual argument here, it's nothing more than an appeal to emotion and an attempt to say "look how horrible these people are".
Or the "stereotype" of the fat trash who think they're preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or any number of stereotypes that have nothing to do with politics.
When books and newspapers, in the hands of children or the mentally ill result in homicides you might have a point.
Or when writing political letters actually affect the scum that make up ones' representatives.
Additional guns and ammunition beyond your proposed limits have a negligible risk of homicide. If you can't kill someone with a pistol, a shotgun, and a few reloads worth of ammunition then having a dozen more shotguns and ten thousand rounds isn't going to make a difference. The only reason to ban the extra guns and ammunition is an emotional argument that "decent people shouldn't want that much", just like the argument that decent people shouldn't want to be able to write more than one political letter per week.
Actually it could make a difference. The shooter in this most recent mass shooting in Oregon purportedly had additional ammunition and weapons stashed nearby for use.
So please. Keep pretending that it's an argument of "decent people shouldn't want that much". It's an argument of "Why does anyone realistically need this?".
In any regards, I've said my piece. Keep at being contrary.
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
K, just following on from when I last entered this thread and seeing it went from there.
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
Sorry I'm not getting my head around this other than people screaming about a police state. When I'm picturing people arguing that storing your guns safely I imagine that you have them sitting casually in umbrella stands or perhaps painted in festive colours as Christmas decorations. ...No, honestly, someone explain to me without having a stick up their ass about hurr durr Amendments and The Man wanting to put their boot down on you?
I don't think you will find people arguing against safe storage of guns, or arguing that people shouldn't be held accountable for crimes that involve their unsecured weapons.
Just that in the current legal climate there really isn't a way to enforce compliance except with punishments after the weapon was used, and that in the current political climate these laws very likely won't change anytime soon.
Frazzled wrote: He wanted to charge them with MURDER. Thats substantially different.
Yeah. It's substantially different in that it's the right thing to do, and you of all people should bloody well know it.
My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
And?
Precedent gets set by actually being conducted. All it takes is one court actually hearing the case and handing down a judgement and the precedent is there. You know that though, right?
Ok, so to keep this polite, I'll just state: so we've established you do not understand the difference between negligence, conspiracy to commit...something, and intentional murder.
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
I'm saying charging them with murder reveals asinine ignorance of law and how things work.
d-usa wrote: I don't think you will find people arguing against safe storage of guns, or arguing that people shouldn't be held accountable for crimes that involve their unsecured weapons.
Just that in the current legal climate there really isn't a way to enforce compliance except with punishments after the weapon was used, and that in the current political climate these laws very likely won't change anytime soon.
There's no way under our current judicial system to conduct random gun storage inspections based solely on the fact that somebody owns guns. The police can't just search people or homes just to see if there are any infractions being committed. Doesn't matter if it's gun storage laws or drug possession laws or child pornography laws or copyright infringement laws or whatever. That's simply not the way law enforcement are allowed to work in our system.
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
Nobody is arguing that.
They are arguing that Murder 1 is never going to stick on a parent of a minor child who used the gun that you left laying around on your night stand to kill another kid.
The parents can, and IMO should, be charged with any number of other laws that may be appropriate though: criminal negligence, manslaughter, endangering a minor, and in states where such laws exist, letting a kid have access to an unsecured weapon as an additional charge to all the other ones.
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
Generally speaking, safe weapon storage is in a locked container of some sort that does not permit easy access to random passers-by or children. Maybe it has a keyed lock, a code-entry, fingerprint scanner, something, but it's something that keeps the weapon, well, securely stored.
d-usa wrote: It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.
According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.
And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.
The reason the govt gets to inspect your plan is because the F in FAA stands for Federal. The Federal govt issues you a pilot's license and one of the conditions of that license is the inspection of your plan. Just like the F in FFL stands for Federal and one of the conditions of obtaining a Federal Firearms License is that the govt can send agents to inspect your store or private logbooks depending on the type of FFL you have. The Federal govt is issuing the license and gets to set the conditions pertaining to the maintaining that license.
Owning a firearm doesn't require any federal licenses. The Federal govt can't pass state or municipal laws and the Federal govt can't issue orders to state, county or municipal police. The only way to establish laws requiring random inspections of gun owner's homes to verify that guns are legally stored in the proper manner would be to pass new laws on the state and local level. Then those laws would have to withstand legal challenges regarding the 4th amendment.
It's not a violation for the ATF to come to my house and check the records I'm required to keep in order to maintain my 03 FFL because thats a condition I agreed to in order to obtain the FFL. Random police searches that are nothing more than a blind fishing expedition hoping to find illegal activity without having any evidence that illegal activities are taking place is not legal and has repeatedly been determined to be illegal by the courts.
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
Nobody is arguing that.
They are arguing that Murder 1 is never going to stick on a parent of a minor child who used the gun that you left laying around on your night stand to kill another kid.
The parents can, and IMO should, be charged with any number of other laws that may be appropriate though: criminal negligence, manslaughter, endangering a minor, and in states where such laws exist, letting a kid have access to an unsecured weapon as an additional charge to all the other ones.
Because, the way the laws are written, you're looking at a max of 10 years for that, in some states (like Texas) as low as 2 years. Negligent Homicide is the lowest-rated of all homicide charges, less even than Murder-3. It also fails to do what needs to be done, which is to make irresponsible weapon owners responsible for the actions involving their weapons, actions that their irresponsible behavior has enabled.
Wyrmalla wrote: K, just following on from when I last entered this thread and seeing it went from there.
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment
That's like asking "without reference to laws against murder, can you explain why it is illegal to murder..."
or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns)
The logistics, in addition to just needing more people to actually carry out these inspections, are a problem because the logistics would be against the 4th Amendment.
why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
The laws really aren't the problem, the enforcement of them is. That's why most states charge people with having an unsecured gun after the unsecured gun was used by a child.
Sorry I'm not getting my head around this other than people screaming about a police state. When I'm picturing people arguing that storing your guns safely I imagine that you have them sitting casually in umbrella stands or perhaps painted in festive colours as Christmas decorations. ...No, honestly, someone explain to me without having a stick up their ass about hurr durr Amendments and The Man wanting to put their boot down on you?
The vast majority of people will never have a problem with storing their guns safely. There might be an argument that you shouldn't be required to have a mini-safe or trigger lock on your gun while it is setting next to you on the nightstand while you sleep, and very much an argument that of course you shouldn't have to put a trigger lock on a weapon you are physically carrying on your person. But people don't have a problem with storing their weapons in a safe manner. The problem is with the inspection side of things.
Frazzled wrote:My point stands. Bring it to a court of law and they will pelt you with lima beans for your stupidity, and if you come back they will taunt you a second time.
So you are then absolving people of responsibility for the actions of their minor children? You are absolving people of responsibility of what happens when the weapons kept in their homes are used in the commission of a crime?
Nobody is arguing that.
They are arguing that Murder 1 is never going to stick on a parent of a minor child who used the gun that you left laying around on your night stand to kill another kid.
The parents can, and IMO should, be charged with any number of other laws that may be appropriate though: criminal negligence, manslaughter, endangering a minor, and in states where such laws exist, letting a kid have access to an unsecured weapon as an additional charge to all the other ones.
Because, the way the laws are written, you're looking at a max of 10 years for that, in some states (like Texas) as low as 2 years. Negligent Homicide is the lowest-rated of all homicide charges, less even than Murder-3. It also fails to do what needs to be done, which is to make irresponsible weapon owners responsible for the actions involving their weapons, actions that their irresponsible behavior has enabled.
Depending on the state. A parent can be charged with Murder if their plan was for their kid to pick up the weapon to kill the other kid because that is what murder is. You don't just change the definition of existing laws just because you don't like the punishment of other laws. If you think that having a kid get access to a weapon and using it to kill someone should result in the parents getting more than X years then you introduce new laws to that effect like California did.
Usually, "accessory to" crimes carry the same penalty as the person performing the crime.
Then, yes, if that is what it takes, then let us do that. If you are negligent in the storage of your weapons, you are as responsible for crimes committed with them as if you had committed those same crimes yourself.
If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
They are locked up in a safe location. It's called my house. Go away. You want to inspect the facilities? Look at my house. Are there guns lying around outside? No? Good, you've inspected, buzz off.
Anyone breaking into your house will have absolutely no, that is, zero difficulty in taking that shiny safe you have bolted down in your garage and tearing it the heck out with a length of chain and the pickup they were loading your stuff into anyway and cutting it open with an O/A torch or grinder later. The "Solutions" proposed are ridiculous, change nothing, and serve only to soothe the emotions of a small group of people....well, and give people trying to follow the rules yet another hole to step into for their trouble.
If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
They are locked up in a safe location. It's called my house. Go away. You want to inspect the facilities? Look at my house. Are there guns lying around outside? No? Good, you've inspected, buzz off.
Anyone breaking into your house will have absolutely no, that is, zero difficulty in taking that shiny safe you have bolted down in your garage and tearing it the heck out with a length of chain and the pickup they were loading your stuff into anyway and cutting it open with an O/A torch or grinder later. The "Solutions" proposed are ridiculous, change nothing, and serve only to soothe the emotions of a small group of people....well, and give people trying to follow the rules yet another hole to step into for their trouble.
If your not using guns, lock them up in a valid gun safe, strong room or such safe location. Is anything complex about this?
They are locked up in a safe location. It's called my house. Go away. You want to inspect the facilities? Look at my house. Are there guns lying around outside? No? Good, you've inspected, buzz off.
Anyone breaking into your house will have absolutely no, that is, zero difficulty in taking that shiny safe you have bolted down in your garage and tearing it the heck out with a length of chain and the pickup they were loading your stuff into anyway and cutting it open with an O/A torch or grinder later. The "Solutions" proposed are ridiculous, change nothing, and serve only to soothe the emotions of a small group of people....well, and give people trying to follow the rules yet another hole to step into for their trouble.
Good thing the discussion is not about "people stealing your gun-safe in an industrial level hit-and-run on your garage after painstakingly casing your home and determining that this is what they would need to do to steal that safe" and instead it is about "it's sensible not to leave unsecured guns laying around your place where kids and others can get to them".
I'm pretty pro-gun, trust me when I say that I am arguing on the side of a lot of users here who I usually oppose on almost everything else, and I don't see anything wrong with promoting safe gun storage (which the vast majority of gun owners already are doing) and punishing people when their negligently stored weapons are used by children in a crime.
So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?
Why?
I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
See, this comment really expresses your ignorance on the topic.
I have 5 shotguns.
I have a 30" barrel Browning Citori for skeet shooting.
I have a 32" Beretta that I use for trap and sporting clays.
I have an Ithica Deerslayer for deer Hunting in Ohio.
I have a Mossberg 500 for HD
And I have an old Remington 870 pump for duck hunting.
Just like a Phillips and flat head screw driver, there are more than enough reasons to have more than one tool.
Good thing the discussion is not about "people stealing your gun-safe in an industrial level hit-and-run on your garage after painstakingly casing your home and determining that this is what they would need to do to steal that safe" and instead it is about "it's sensible not to leave unsecured guns laying around your place where kids and others can get to them".
Good thing the "There awta be a LAW!" solutions presented, you know, the ones that would apply to EVERYONE in all situations and scenarios, had more than two seconds thought put into them and accounted for the fact not everyone has:
Kids
Housemates
Or a compulsion to leave their doors and windows unlocked.
...Wait....
EDIT: To respond to the other point, should you leave a weapon (or any tool at all) where a third party can get at them without your knowledge? Can't say it's a good idea. I wouldn't want kids having access to my chemicals, welding materials, or power tools either. However, I find it interesting that no one is up in arms about the can of gasoline in the garage not being securely locked into place at all times or face legal penalties. I'm pretty sure arson will kill people at least as dead as bullets. Probably MORE people to boot.
Good thing the discussion is not about "people stealing your gun-safe in an industrial level hit-and-run on your garage after painstakingly casing your home and determining that this is what they would need to do to steal that safe" and instead it is about "it's sensible not to leave unsecured guns laying around your place where kids and others can get to them".
Good thing the "There awta be a LAW!" solutions presented, you know, the ones that would apply to EVERYONE in all situations and scenarios, had more than two seconds thought put into them and accounted for the fact not everyone has:
Kids
Housemates
Or a compulsion to leave their doors and windows unlocked.
...Wait....
EDIT: To respond to the other point, should you leave a weapon (or any tool at all) where a third party can get at them without your knowledge? Can't say it's a good idea. I wouldn't want kids having access to my chemicals, welding materials, or power tools either. However, I find it interesting that no one is up in arms about the can of gasoline in the garage not being securely locked into place at all times or face legal penalties. I'm pretty sure arson will kill people at least as dead as bullets. Probably MORE people to boot.
It's hilarious that you put forth locking windows as a barrier to people getting your guns whereas apparently a solid safe bolted onto a wall is not.
It's hilarious that you put forth locking windows as a barrier to people getting your guns whereas apparently a solid safe bolted onto a wall is not.
Probably because they'll provide about the same amount of protection as a locked window or doorknob. They keep honest people honest and that's really about it. No safe the average human being can afford or install is going to actually STOP someone who wants your stuff from getting it. Do I own a safe? Sure, its a 1/2 inch thick fridge sized monster I got for free. I have no illusions that it will actually prevent anyone with an ounce of determination from getting into it. Frankly, most people keep their security containers in the very same structures as they keep the tools that could be immediately used to OPEN said container.
All it buys you is a few minutes and some noise someone MIGHT hear and call the police over. Kinda like the sound of a window shattering.
Yes, because most burglars take heavy machinery with them.
Yea, I'm sure that the garage doesn't have any drills, grinders, or in some cases torches. I'm also sure they don't have anything of the kind in their vehicle either. Nope. Totally impossible. Also unthinkable that they'll rip the safe out of the wall or garage with a crowbar or chain+truck (In the case of most humans who have to work for a living, it's not going to be heavy enough to require the latter, by the way.) and take it to a remote location to be pried open at leisure.
I hate to say it, but safes are paper tigers. Sometimes they weigh a few hundred pounds, but they have ratings "Resist <x> MINUTES" for a reason.
Yes, because most burglars take heavy machinery with them.
Yea, I'm sure that the garage doesn't have any drills, grinders, or in some cases torches. I'm also sure they don't have anything of the kind in their vehicle either. Nope. Totally impossible.
I hate to say it, but safes are paper tigers. Sometimes they weigh a few hundred pounds, but they have ratings "Resist <x> MINUTES" for a reason.
I'm not saying it's not possible. It's possible that they come with a brick of C4, it's just very unlikely. Most people stealing stuff aren't really going to want to attract attention to themselves are they? Especially if they don't know if anyone is home.
And I think you overestimate the average american's garage. Many people have drills, but often they are pretty crappy, and probably don't have any bits made for metal. Try drilling through even eight inch steel with a wood drill, you aren't getting anywhere. And grinders and torches are sort of specialty items, people don't just have them normally. Besides, that would have to be a pretty good torch to cut through steel of any thickness. Unless you are talking about cutting torches, which are even less likely for people to have.
So are you saying there should be a limit to the number of firearms and ammunition one can own?
Why?
I'm absolutely saying that. And why?
How many firearms does anyone, realistically, need? How much ammunition does anyone, realistically, need in their home?
A pistol and a shotgun or rifle per adult in the house, and enough ammunition to reasonably defend ones' home from an intruder or for the purposes of hunting during a season.
See, this comment really expresses your ignorance on the topic.
I have 5 shotguns.
I have a 30" barrel Browning Citori for skeet shooting.
I have a 32" Beretta that I use for trap and sporting clays.
I have an Ithica Deerslayer for deer Hunting in Ohio.
I have a Mossberg 500 for HD
And I have an old Remington 870 pump for duck hunting.
Just like a Phillips and flat head screw driver, there are more than enough reasons to have more than one tool.
Indeed, different weapons have different purposes.
More to the point, having more weapons doesn't make you any more dangerous. A person can only wield one weapon at a time, it's not like having a dozen guns makes you able to kill 12x as many people as having 1 gun, any more than having 12 screwdrivers makes you able to assemble a piece of furniture 12x faster than having 1 screwdriver.
Also, when it comes to ammunition, limits are rather hard to justify looking at how ammunition is really used.
In a single day at a range, it's not impossible to go through several hundred rounds of ammunition. For someone serious into shooting sports, going through 2000 rounds a month isn't at all impossible, that's about ~15-20 magazines worth or shooting once a week for an afternoon or something like that. Even for casual shooters, having several hundred or a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition in the home is not at all out of the ordinary. Someone checking out at a place like Cabelas with several hundred rounds of ammunition isn't going to make anyone blink, it looks like a huge amount of ammunition when thrown into a headline, but that's a small enough quantity that you can put it in a plastic grocery bag and probably still fit some more stuff in.
On the opposite side, for some sort of "active shooter", they're probably not carrying gobs of ammunition, the total expended round count at most "mass shootings" is usually in the double digits. if you look at the 2012 Aurora Theater shooting, a grand total of 76 rounds of ammunition were expended in that attack. Even in the Virginia Tech massacre, IIRC the highest-body-count mass shooting in the US, had less than 200 rounds expended from what I recall. It would not seem that ammunition limits would particularly matter much in such instances.
No, what you are saying it's not even likely, which is...laughable.
but often they are pretty crappy
So are the "security containers" that are typically sold. Don't just take my word for it, actually Go to a sporting goods place and examine the stuff they have for sale. It's well and truly pathetic, these containers would not be hard to open up by anyone who had two braincells to clang together.
No, what you are saying it's not even likely, which is...laughable.
It's laughable that I think burglars don't generally carry around heavy power tools?
but often they are pretty crappy
So are the "security containers" that are typically sold. Don't just take my word for it, actually Go to a sporting goods place and examine the stuff they have for sale. It's well and truly pathetic, these containers would not be hard to open up by anyone who had two braincells to clang together.
That's more of a problem with what you are buying then, not safes themselves not working. At that point you buy a better container.
Anyone breaking into your house will have absolutely no, that is, zero difficulty in taking that shiny safe you have bolted down in your garage and tearing it the heck out with a length of chain and the pickup they were loading your stuff into anyway and cutting it open with an O/A torch or grinder later.
It's laughable that I think burglars don't generally carry around heavy power tools?
No, it's laughable that you think burglars intent on actually robbing a place carry NO tools, or that the tools required for the job ARE hard to obtain, cumbersome, or uncommon.
That's more of a problem with what you are buying then, not safes themselves not working. At that point you buy a better container.
Actually read my posts please. I am pointedly NOT buying them. I have one an order of magnitude more durable than what you are going to find off the rack in most places. However, this is a much better point than your previous.
Fact remains, this is what is sold, and what most people are going to buy. It does beg the question "If this is a person who is going to have to move, or install in an apartment, can much better actually BE done?"
So, even if I were to entertain the idea that you SHOULD absolutely have a safe, how heavy MUST it be? How much EXPENSE should be mandated for someone to own a certain thing (Another point NOT in favor of the "MANDATE SAFES!" camp)? These aren't free, and the price can ramp up rapidly depending. How much weight? Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.
Heh, aye, regarding the containers not being up the job, its a joke to say "oh the ones that the store sells are cheap pieces of crap, so that means I shouldn't be using anything at all". IIRC the law in my country has you store your guns separately from the ammunition too, which sort of beats the point of a burglar using the gun against you. ...Or are we working under the assumption that said person who first break into one container and then go searching for the other one instead of just bringing a gun with them themselves?
...Though this discussion is about a preteen having access to a gun, so all this talk about power tools is perhaps a bit moot.
Point stands though, and I'm not going to beat a dead horse about it, if you're using your guns as tasteful chandelier ornaments then you're being more than a little irresponsible. =P
In regards to inspections. As has been said, if you're arguing against those, besides just regarding the logistics, then how are you fine with car MOTs (or whatever they're called in the US)? Is it people just getting hung up on guns? Sorry, again can someone explain the logic outside of citing the 4th amendment (which as has been mentioned would be laughed out of a court if you pulled that line for other subjects) and yammering about a police state how it would be an issue? Is it that people would be coming into your home? I'm not really speaking for the practicality or about realistic such a law would be, rather I'm hearing a lot of rather defensive attitudes towards the state having any impact on people's lives beyond some guy sitting on his porch with a shotgun pointed at the taxmen standing a mile away outside his barbed wire fence....
Edit:
Huh, I looked at the UK gun storage law. Beyond the gun having to fit in the safe and it having to be fixed I don't see anything regarding weight. Guess they assume that the thing should be secure enough not to be broken into easily, so the guy inspecting the thing judges it by eye. All it advises is that a timber beam of x size can support a weight of x. Overall the document seems more like its advising you on what you should do rather than setting things in stone (again I suppose anyone inspecting the safe would be the one to judge if it were secure or not). There's probably a better file out there on this subject though than the one I just pulled off the government's site. =P
Its because with Cars and Planes you waive those rights specifically in those instances. But as guns(technically all weaponry) are a constitutional right you do not waive those rights.
If cars were invented at the time of the Constitution then would people be whinging about those in the same manner as they do when discussing the same laws which effect those applying to guns then?
Point stands though, and I'm not going to beat a dead horse about it, if you're using your guns as tasteful chandelier ornaments then you're being more than a little irresponsible.
If you have kids, sure. If you live alone, have no guests, then it becomes little more than terrible choice in decoration.
In regards to inspections. As has been said, if you're arguing against those, besides just regarding the logistics, then how are you fine with car MOTs (or whatever they're called in the US)? Is it people just getting hung up on guns? Sorry, again can someone explain the logic outside of citing the 4th amendment
See my initial post. If I wanted to be less flippant (but still accurate) I have to have my vehicle periodically inspected....to take it on the road. I don't have to take it on the road. It can sit and rust for the next 20 years just fine.
Now why do we inspect cars? To make sure the stupid thing isn't going to fly apart or otherwise not function properly on the road. This doesn't really apply to a firearm. A private firearm (I surely hope) not something in constant, long term, use in a public setting. A direct equivalent would be asking for my pistol, looking at it, going "HURP DURP its got oil and the right bullets here you go lolz" and charging me 60 bucks for my trouble, but only for guns i take into a public settings. (BTW, if your firearm is unservicable, someone is going to catch it during your concealed carry or hunting license courses, whichever is applicable.)
What is being advocated is something else. It is "Because you own X let me come into your house and check things out whenever I want." Which should be shouted down for being arbitrary, let alone anything else.
However, having access to a weapon of the lethality of a shotgun is somewhat different than getting a baseball bat or steak knife and trying to murder her. If nothing else, the reports I've read indicate that he shot her from inside the house. The willingness to attack her was amplified by an available weapon that allowed him to do so at a distance.
And yes, the human body is simultaneously a remarkably resilient structure (see: people getting shot a dozen times and surviving) and incredibly fragile (see: people dying after falling up a set of 2 stairs). That said, I sincerely hope I don't have to argue with anyone that a shotgun is a tool capable of delivering immense trauma at a greater range in a shorter period of time than most household blades or bludgeons (not that I would want to be stabbed or bludgeoned, but I'd probably take that risk over being shotgunned if I had to choose).
Would a quarter million gun safes and trigger locks prevent all tragedies everywhere ever? No. But accidents happen. A lot of them. Suicides happen. Mass shootings happen.
And until something changes in the US, some of that blood spilled is the price paid. Whether it's a change in policy or technology or culture or whatever. Eliminating guns wouldn't eliminate murders, nor am I saying that should be a goal (reasonable or otherwise), but the availability of guns heightens the success of suicide attempts using them (the barriers to success don't actually have to be all that high to save lives), and while we certainly have heard of mass stabbings, I dare say we don't have them on a weekly basis (see original statements about 'picking my poison' while we're at it).
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
But guns make it quicker and easier to kill people when a person has decided that's how it is going to be (or an accident occurs, or they decide they're tired of being turned down for dates, whatever).
Might as well embrace the cynicism. Nothing changed after Sandy Hook, nothing will change now.
Makayla Dyer's death is a small part of the price of Freedom! *insert crying Eagle in front of the Stars and Stripes here*
It's laughable that I think burglars don't generally carry around heavy power tools?
No, it's laughable that you think burglars intent on actually robbing a place carry NO tools, or that the tools required for the job ARE hard to obtain, cumbersome, or uncommon.
Of course they carry tools. I never said they carried no tools. I just doubted them having power tools good enough to get through decent steel, especially if they want to remain undetected. Crowbars, screwdrivers, hammers make sense. That will open most things short of a safe, lock-boxes, cabinets, ect. And it will do so cheaply (which is important as people who steal generally don't have much disposable income), quietly, and with a minimum of size and weight.
And metal cutting tools are not cheap. Nor are they particularly common. They are a specialty item, most people don't have them. Most people have no need of them. Even then, you have to think about them knowing how to use them. Same for grinders. Drills (as I said before) are more common, but bits made for metal, especially thick metal, are also relatively uncommon. And if the safe is any good, a drill isn't going to do much even if you drill all the way through. You'd get it open eventually, but the amount of time it would take is not something a burglar is going to take.
That's more of a problem with what you are buying then, not safes themselves not working. At that point you buy a better container.
Actually read my posts please. I am pointedly NOT buying them. I have one an order of magnitude more durable than what you are going to find off the rack in most places. However, this is a much better point than your previous.
Fact remains, this is what is sold, and what most people are going to buy. It does beg the question "If this is a person who is going to have to move, or install in an apartment, can much better actually BE done?"
So, even if I were to entertain the idea that you SHOULD absolutely have a safe, how heavy MUST it be? How much EXPENSE should be mandated for someone to own a certain thing (Another point NOT in favor of the "MANDATE SAFES!" camp)? These aren't free, and the price can ramp up rapidly depending. How much weight? Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.
You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I'm saying that if someone (I used the word you because that's how I talk, addressing the person I talk to) is buying a crappy safe, and find your stuff stolen, it's not that safes don't work, it's that you bought a crappy safe. It's not a specific "you did this".
And nowhere have I argued about mandating safes. I have no opinion on that matter (not owning guns myself, I don't really know). I am just disagreeing with the notion that having a safe is useless.
You misunderstand what I'm advocating here. Its not just the inspection of the gun itself. I'm also saying that they should be stored appropriately. In other words it would be to 1) make sure the gun is being stored when not in use and 2) making sure that its being stored securely. Naturally someone could leave their guns laying about all day in neat little piles and then stick them in the safe when the inspector calls, but the same could be said of people conning the MOT system. So its not a case of checking that a gun shoots straight, rather just that some guy without a hammer couldn't come along, see a gun sitting in a flower pot and then go off on their merry way with it.
...Sorry if my description of casual gun storage is perhaps a bit condescending. In part its perhaps down to that its sort of against the law here not to have your gun just sitting out so that anyone could pick it up.
Wyrmalla wrote: If cars were invented at the time of the Constitution then would people be whinging about those in the same manner as they do when discussing the same laws which effect those applying to guns then?
When we're talking about things related to cars, we have to keep something in mind. You accept a lot of things and waive some rights in exchange for a privilege, that of being able to operate a motor vehicle in a public road.
If you are operating a motor vehicle on something other than a public road, say, one's own property or a private racetrack, that's an entirely different ball game. You can drive a car with no headlights and broken blinkers, with an automatic weapon concealed in the front seat and going around a racetrack at 150mph and spewing all sorts of pollutoin into the air, and it's not something the police have any right to do anything about.
It's the use and operation of that motor vehicle on public roads that gives the state the right to do certain things.
When we're talking about private firearms ownership, there's no use of a collective public good that gives the state a reason to be able to do certain things.
And then that beat up junker with no seat belts crashes and kills a bunch of people on private property and people are outraged that some idiots didn't follow the common sense regulations that are followed everywhere else. The same then goes for guns. In public you don't just go to Taco Bell and leave your gun out on the table as you go to the toilet, why should you be doing that at home? Sure its your "right" at present to do whatever the hell you like in your home, but if you're leaving pistols laying about at random at a kid's birthday party at your house and some kid gets shot then I'm not sure that argument would really pass...
Hmn, OT you are making me feel the need to put the winky face emoticon at the end of everything I type here too much. ¬¬
CantonRep wrote: A 12-year-old South Carolina boy was fatally shot Friday in what authorities say was an accident during a target-shooting outing.
The victim was identified as Joseph Baily of More, South Carolina. The shooting occurred in the 8400 block of Bay Road in Carroll County’s Lee Township, southeast of Carrollton.
“It was an accident,” county Sheriff Dale Williams said Monday. “It (shooter) was a juvenile. It was a brother. His brother was 11 years old.”
Sheriff deputies were notified of the incident at 5:14 p.m. Friday.
The boy was pronounced dead at the scene by the Carroll County coroner. The Stark County coroner’s staff will conduct the autopsy.
“They were actually target shooting,” Carroll County Coroner Mandal Haas said. “They were visiting a friend they knew here in Ohio. This was real ammunition. It was a head wound.”
The weapon was a handgun.
“The 11-year-old picked up a weapon off of a picnic table,” Sheriff Williams said. “He accidentally shot it.”
While the shooting was accidental, Carroll County authorities, however, could file criminal charges. Those charges could be filed against who ever failed to secure the weapon.
“Everything will be finalized and the results will be sent to the (county) prosecutor,” Williams said
They will also open pretty much any safe you buy in a store. Hence my point. Also hence my question of "How much better can realistically be expected?" A lot of people for various reasons CAN'T afford or can't install the safes we might like to dream about having.
especially if they want to remain undetected.
After breaking in doors/windows, which is the only time a safe might ever possibly have a use. It has become clear.
And metal cutting tools are not cheap.
...You are aware that you can go like, right now and buy an O/A torch that will happily chew through inch thick+ steel plate for 60 bucks? http://www.harborfreight.com/18-inch-oxygen-acetylene-cutting-torch-96290.html That was after a whole two minutes searching in google, not looking used, not asking my mythical friend bob if I can borrow his torch for a day, etc. That's two fill ups for the car, it's not a big deal anymore.
Even then, you have to think about them knowing how to use them.
That's like saying hackers aren't a problem because you have to know how to use a computer. It takes less than 15 minutes to learn how to use the torch listed above.
You misunderstand what I'm advocating here.
No. I did not. I understood perfectly what you asked (Which was my reply about function check. This is the direct equivalent of our car inspections.) and I also understood perfectly what you MEANT (Which was the last line of my post that probably made the whole idea sound capricious and arbitary, which it is.) Thing is you are not understanding is that over here at least, it really doesn't matter what you are talking about, if you tell a person you are going to come into their house at any time they please to do -ANYTHING- you better be able to tell them something pretty compelling as to what it's going to accomplish, and in this case? Generally nothing of value is going to be gained versus the state of things we have now.
And then that beat up junker with no seat belts crashes and kills a bunch of people on private property and people are outraged that some idiots didn't follow the common sense regulations that are followed everywhere else.
Then it's a liability issue for the owner, possibly even criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter, but it's not something the State has the ability to ticket them for or actively regulate the way they would on public streets.
The same then goes for guns. In public you don't just go to Taco Bell and leave your gun out on the table as you go to the toilet, why should you be doing that at home?
Because it's your home and you're allowed to do whatever you want therein as long as it is not actively harmful to someone else.
Sure its your "right" at present to do whatever the hell you like in your home, but if you're leaving pistols laying about at random at a kid's birthday party at your house and some kid gets shot then I'm not sure that argument would really pass...
That's a different case with special circumstances would in most cases be covered under something like "criminal negligence" or the like in most circumstances where the owner should have known that leaving the firearm about in the manner that they did was potentially dangerous. However, if we're talking something like a single adult with no kids and no expectations of anyone being over, in their own apartment, that's not something the state really has a case for doing anything about.
Hmn, OT you are making me feel the need to put the winky face emoticon at the end of everything I type here too much. ¬¬
I commonly use such just to done down the edginess of many discussions
Psienesis wrote: So... how many times does this have to happen before something changes?
CantonRep wrote: A 12-year-old South Carolina boy was fatally shot Friday in what authorities say was an accident during a target-shooting outing.
The victim was identified as Joseph Baily of More, South Carolina. The shooting occurred in the 8400 block of Bay Road in Carroll County’s Lee Township, southeast of Carrollton.
“It was an accident,” county Sheriff Dale Williams said Monday. “It (shooter) was a juvenile. It was a brother. His brother was 11 years old.”
Sheriff deputies were notified of the incident at 5:14 p.m. Friday.
The boy was pronounced dead at the scene by the Carroll County coroner. The Stark County coroner’s staff will conduct the autopsy.
“They were actually target shooting,” Carroll County Coroner Mandal Haas said. “They were visiting a friend they knew here in Ohio. This was real ammunition. It was a head wound.”
The weapon was a handgun.
“The 11-year-old picked up a weapon off of a picnic table,” Sheriff Williams said. “He accidentally shot it.”
While the shooting was accidental, Carroll County authorities, however, could file criminal charges. Those charges could be filed against who ever failed to secure the weapon.
“Everything will be finalized and the results will be sent to the (county) prosecutor,” Williams said
What would you legislate to change something like this? They were out actively using a firearm in a sporting capacity, in this case there is already legislation in place to cover some sort of criminal negligence if they left an unloaded weapon where a minor could access it unintentionally.
You're getting caught up on people breaking and entering a house to steal the gun. If people have an issue with that at present then they would already have taken action against that. Safe storage isn't about preventing guys with blowtorches from stealing your guns. Its to prevent cases where the weapons can be put into the hands of people other than their owners without the owner's awareness. That's to say kids picking them up or someone just taking one and walking away with it. Its prevention, not a total solution. Is a kid going to start pulling out torches and hammers to get into a safe? Nine times out of ten, probably not. Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out? ...Is this becoming a redundant question at this point?
@Vaktathi
Ack fair enough man. In which case let's do a blanket coverage of every case where someone doesn't have their gun stored away safely and then something ill happens as "criminal negligence". Rather than putting in preventative measures then you're advocating stamping down on when the lack of those leads to harm happening? Someone picks up a gun that was just lying around and kills someone. Their neighbours for instance are doing the exact same thing, but instead of taking that as a lesson, they just go "ah well, won't be me!" and carry on?
They will also open pretty much any safe you buy in a store. Hence my point. Also hence my question of "How much better can realistically be expected?" A lot of people for various reasons CAN'T afford or can't install the safes we might like to dream about having.
Again, that's a probelm with people buying crappy safes, not that safes themselves are not effective.
especially if they want to remain undetected.
After breaking in doors/windows, which is the only time a safe might ever possibly have a use. It has become clear.
Somehow I think a breaking pane of glass so they can reach the lock might be a tad quieter than going at a safe with a grinder.
And metal cutting tools are not cheap.
...You are aware that you can go like, right now and buy an O/A torch that will happily chew through inch thick+ steel plate for 60 bucks? http://www.harborfreight.com/18-inch-oxygen-acetylene-cutting-torch-96290.html That was after a whole two minutes searching in google, not looking used, not asking my mythical friend bob if I can borrow his torch for a day, etc. That's two fill ups for the car, it's not a big deal anymore.
Well, that might be useful if it was attached to anything and wan't literally just the nozzle.
Even then, you have to think about them knowing how to use them.
That's like saying hackers aren't a problem because you have to know how to use a computer. It takes less than 15 minutes to learn how to use the torch listed above.
No it is something to think about. Again, most burglars are going to be quite poor. They may not have access to instructions on how to use them, and because of that they will not think to use them.
Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out?
In most cases? Honestly, no not really. Not if you stop and think about who this is all supposed to be preventing from getting at your stuff, at any rate.
Well, that might be useful if it was attached to anything and wan't literally just the nozzle.
That's a bit like saying "That car might be useful if it wasn't all there except for the vanity mirror." The torch itself is by far the most expensive part. rented tanks and a gas line will set you back about three or four starbucks, maybe. Again, big deal.
Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out?
In most cases? Honestly, no not really. Not if you stop and think about who this is all supposed to be stopping, at any rate.
People are really, really getting hung up about the home invaders with the industrial tools stick here. ...In a thread about stopping kids from picking up easily accessible guns. Kids aren't going to be pulling out the blow torches or hammers nine times out of ten... Its a deterrent not a total solution. =P
And as a whole this argument about not having any secure storage at all is sound like "oh a criminal can easily break through a lock, so that means I didn't have to go out and buy one for any of my doors.".
Well the real point that was being made was that, for people without spouses and/or children, there's no practical reason for them to have a safe or storage that locking your doors doesn't fulfill.
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
That's all they need to be for sensible weapon security. If someone breaks into your house and steals your weapon-locker, report it to the police. There, your due diligence is done, crimes committed with the registered firearms in the stolen safe are no longer your responsibility.
Handed your 17 year old a S&W .40 cal before he went and shot up a nightclub? Yeah... that's on you.
As to what could be done to prevent this most recent killing?
Let's start with mandatory safety courses, to include both a written test and a test of practical application.
Minimum ages for the operation of firearms.
Re-testing at regular intervals to prove continued competence.
Possession of insurance to protect those injured by accidents, or deliberate use, involving your firearm
...In a thread about stopping kids from picking up easily accessible guns.
Did you miss the first three pages of the thread?
What kind of kids are we stopping from just picking guns up? I, and a lot of other people HAVE no children. Thus, any kid picking up my guns has broken into my house.
Second, if I did have kids, it goes one of two ways: I tell them not to touch thing. I put trigger lock on thing, put thing in safe, or I put thing in my bedroom.
At this point, they decide: Do I touch thing? If YES: Touch thing/bolt cutters to trigger lock/find key to safe or figure out what the combo is (Because he's totally stupid enough to never have watched you work the lock btw.) or busts the lock on the bedroom.
If NO: It could be dangling from the cieling fan for all it would matter.
I hate to break it down this way but at least in this case, crappy parenting overruled all.
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
And legislation is pretty much concerned about keeping children away from them, so a gun safe or a cheap trigger lock is all you need for that.
I'm not sure how "keep kids away from weapons" suddenly turned into "these laws will not stop the neighborhood gang from breaking down my garage door with power tools while backing up their pickup to haul my safe down the street".
If you are looking at a gun safe for actually protecting your weapons from thieves then you would be looking at a lot of money of course. I also think that you would be stupid to put it in the garage for any number of reasons (letting everybody see that you have a lot of guns whenever you open your garage door, poor condition to store guns and other valuables considering that they will be exposed to big swings in temperature and humidity, a big opening that makes it easy to drive in with that mean pickup to chain up your safe).
If you just want a barrier that keeps kids away then the trigger lock or cable lock that came with your gun is fine. You can also get a $30 metal box that keeps the little one from picking up the gun as well. I keep a small metal box with a cable lock attached to my floorboard so that if I end up having to run somewhere that I can't carry I can stick it in there. I'm under no delusion that it will deter anyone who really wants it, but the guy dashing into my car really quick won't be able to pull it out in 5 seconds. I keep my guns and ammo in a cheap locked plastic box and I have a combination gun-box on my nightstand to keep my gun while I sleep. That helps me make sure that my 2 year old can't mess with anything and is enough to keep them out of sight and reach when nieces and nephews are coming to visit.
I wouldn't advocate a $2,000+ safe for everyone if they only have $500 worth of guns and ammo, that wouldn't make any sense. But if you have a lot of money invested in weapons it only makes sense to protect your investment with a quality safe that will also help keep them in the best condition by controlling the humidity and exposure to sunlight.I will probably pick up a big safe next year though because in addition to my guns it will also be a spot to keep other valuables. So I will be sure to get one that is rated well for entry and fire protection, and it will be bolted down in an interior closet to make it harder to get out and help control the climate conditions.
SOFDC wrote: Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.
Would it?
If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?
Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
I know. And I have repeatedly stating that then it's the fact that it's a crappy safe is the problem if it gets stolen, not that safes themselves can't stop them from getting stolen. That's the idea I was disagreeing with. I know I write in a somewhat confusing manner at times, but I thought I got my point across in a relatively clear manner.
SOFDC wrote: Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.
Would it?
If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?
Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.
In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder. Applying similar logic to other rights, like Speech, would hardly fly, and in the case of firearms, typically don't make it past court challenges, particularly if it's attached to something else (e.g. CA has a law where if a child gets access to a firearm and discharges it causing damage, harm or death, and you had failed to adequately secure said firearm, *and* you had reasonable expectation that a child would be present, you can be sent to jail, but not just for not having it secured).
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
That's all they need to be for sensible weapon security. If someone breaks into your house and steals your weapon-locker, report it to the police. There, your due diligence is done, crimes committed with the registered firearms in the stolen safe are no longer your responsibility.
Handed your 17 year old a S&W .40 cal before he went and shot up a nightclub? Yeah... that's on you.
As to what could be done to prevent this most recent killing?
Let's start with mandatory safety courses, to include both a written test and a test of practical application.
Minimum ages for the operation of firearms.
Re-testing at regular intervals to prove continued competence.
Possession of insurance to protect those injured by accidents, or deliberate use, involving your firearm
Just for starters.
All of which would be considered unreasonable barriers to expressing ones second amendment rights, ala requiring a photo ID to vote.
I've actually said in not opposed to safety courses. The government would have to pay for them, though.
Minimum age is ridiculous. There are millions of kids that hunt with their parents or shoot for sport. And the ones that are actually operating one as opposed to fething around with one an irresponsible parent locked most likely come from a home where they're taught how to respect and responsibly use a firearm.
None of them will ever happen in the current environment or without major changes to the 2nd.
Vaktathi wrote: In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder.
Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.
Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.
Are guns exempt from sales taxes? If not, can poor people choose to not pay those taxes, on the grounds that they can't afford them but are entitled to own guns?
Applying similar logic to other rights, like Speech, would hardly fly, ...
The obvious difference being that somebody not owning a secure box in which to keep their diary is unlikely to result in their child taking a parent's careless turn of phrase and using it to kill the neighbour's kid for not showing them their puppy...
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Da Boss wrote: It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.
This sounds like a strawman. Who precisely on this board accepted mass surveillance and opposed gun registration?
Wyrmalla wrote: K, just following on from when I last entered this thread and seeing it went from there.
Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?
Sorry I'm not getting my head around this other than people screaming about a police state. When I'm picturing people arguing that storing your guns safely I imagine that you have them sitting casually in umbrella stands or perhaps painted in festive colours as Christmas decorations. ...No, honestly, someone explain to me without having a stick up their ass about hurr durr Amendments and The Man wanting to put their boot down on you?
300,000,00 people live in the United States
There are 112.6 guns per 100 people
Those facts should sufficiently demonstrate the logistical difficulty in examining the storage of firearms. Now imagine the financial burden on the country for this venture.
Vaktathi wrote: In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder.
Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.
Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.
To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.
Are guns exempt from sales taxes? If not, can poor people choose to not pay those taxes, on the grounds that they can't afford them but are entitled to own guns?
Sales taxes are typically *very* modest relative to the price of something like a full on gun-safe, sales tax won't price anyone out of affordability. A full on gun safe however, which is often a four digit purchase, is another matter altogether. If we're just talking trigger locks, that's one thing, and most guns come with one these days.
The obvious difference being that somebody not owning a secure box in which to keep their diary is unlikely to result in their child taking a parent's careless turn of phrase and using it to kill the neighbour's kid for not showing them their puppy...
You clearly have never seen the havoc Facebook can wreak
To an extent I agree, however ultimately the point is that if you put lots of restrictions and mandatory prerequisites on a right, it ceases to be a right.
With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.
Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.
cincydooley wrote: Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.
Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.
If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +
That's all they need to be for sensible weapon security. If someone breaks into your house and steals your weapon-locker, report it to the police. There, your due diligence is done, crimes committed with the registered firearms in the stolen safe are no longer your responsibility.
Handed your 17 year old a S&W .40 cal before he went and shot up a nightclub? Yeah... that's on you.
As to what could be done to prevent this most recent killing?
Let's start with mandatory safety courses, to include both a written test and a test of practical application.
Minimum ages for the operation of firearms.
Re-testing at regular intervals to prove continued competence.
Possession of insurance to protect those injured by accidents, or deliberate use, involving your firearm
Just for starters.
All of which would be considered unreasonable barriers to expressing ones second amendment rights, ala requiring a photo ID to vote.
I've actually said in not opposed to safety courses. The government would have to pay for them, though.
Minimum age is ridiculous. There are millions of kids that hunt with their parents or shoot for sport. And the ones that are actually operating one as opposed to fething around with one an irresponsible parent locked most likely come from a home where they're taught how to respect and responsibly use a firearm.
None of them will ever happen in the current environment or without major changes to the 2nd.
So they're non-starters
Drinking alcohol has a minimum age, but is a 'right' under the 21st Amendment technically.
Vaktathi wrote: To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.
It should only be a problem if that 'government imposition' is an unreasonable one.
Expecting people who own deadly weapons to be able to adequately secure said deadly weapon is not an unreasonable requirement.
Saying 'You have to secure your weapons... unless you can't afford to, or you live somewhere where that might be awkward, in which case you can just pretend to secure your weapons'?
Psienesis wrote: With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.
Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.
And that's a wonderful platitude, but where do you determine where that line is, particularly in a nation of 300 million+ people spread over nearly 4 millions square miles of territory with rather stark divides between urban and rural populations?
More to the point, what is your actual chance of being killed in this manner? I mean, nobody says it doesn't happen, but looking at the annual death rate for things like this, it's absolutely minuscule, Tragic, but ultimately, extremely few in number.
Vaktathi wrote: To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.
It should only be a problem if that 'government imposition' is an unreasonable one.
Expecting people who own deadly weapons to be able to adequately secure said deadly weapon is not an unreasonable requirement.
Saying 'You have to secure your weapons... unless you can't afford to, or you live somewhere where that might be awkward, in which case you can just pretend to secure your weapons'?
That, IMO, would be unreasonable.
Which then all centers around what "adequately secure" is. If it's a trigger/action lock, well, as I said, that's cheap and many guns come with one these days. If it's a full on safe costing 4 digits, that's where you'll run into more disagreement.
EDIT: more to the point, trying to enforce something like this would be a nightmare, and really more commonly would just be used as an add-on charge (much like the way "resisting arrest" often is) or could really only be enforce in much the same way something like "criminal negligence" is now, after the fact.
Drinking alcohol has a minimum age, but is a 'right' under the 21st Amendment technically.
Its far from ridiculous.
No, it's not a right, it's simply repealing outright prohibition at the federal level and shifting that choice to state and local levels. There's nothing in there about granting a "right to drink", it's just saying "we're no longer actively prohibiting the manufacture & sale".
I’ve argued a hell of a lot times about the basic effect of gun saturation on a society. When there are more guns around, they get used more often. This shooting is a very simple example of that. That kid likely had a whole lot of issues, but the reality is if there was no gun in the house, he wouldn't have shot his neighbour.
This doesn’t automatically lead to banning or restricting guns, there remain plenty of arguments against gun control. But the gun control debate just needs to begin with a basic position of honesty, and accept that when there’s more guns around, they’ll get used more.
cincydooley wrote: Well the real point that was being made was that, for people without spouses and/or children, there's no practical reason for them to have a safe or storage that locking your doors doesn't fulfill.
There's a very obvious practical reason: it prevents casual thieves from getting your guns. Obviously no amount of secure storage is going to stop an FBI-backed* terrorist group from getting your guns, but a decent gun safe is going to stop the guy who is just looking for something to pay for their drug addiction. That guy is going to smash a window, grab whatever looks expensive and easy to carry (cash, laptops, etc), and get away. They aren't going show up with a truck, industrial-grade cutting equipment, and a few other people to help. I mean, why do you think people bother with stuff like deadbolts or alarm systems to protect their house? Those things aren't going to stop the most determined professional thieves, but we still believe that they have value.
In fact, why even keep a gun for home defense at all? The FBI-backed terrorist group knows that you have one, so their sniper will kill you as you walk out the door and then everyone will come take all of your stuff and murder the rest of your family. And the police won't show up because the terrorists cut the phone lines and brought in cell phone jammers to prevent your neighbors from calling for help. So clearly your personal gun is useless, and there's no reason to worry about whether or not you're allowed to have it.
*Which is of course a false-flag operation to create a national tragedy that will justify more gun control.
insaniak wrote: Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.
Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.
There's a problem with that argument: the US has a long and ugly history of using arbitrary costs as a way to keep the "wrong" people from voting/owning guns/etc. You can't explicitly say "only white people can own guns", but you can make guns have a $10,000 tax that only rich white people can afford, require permission from a racist police department to get a gun permit, etc. It's just like the case a while back with voter ID laws, the laws don't solve any real problem with voter fraud but they're effectively a poll tax that keeps the "wrong" people from voting.
Now, could there be reasonable mandatory expenses for exercising rights? I guess. But given past history we should be very skeptical about any such proposal.
insaniak wrote: Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?
No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.
insaniak wrote: Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?
No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.
Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).
sebster wrote: I’ve argued a hell of a lot times about the basic effect of gun saturation on a society. When there are more guns around, they get used more often. This shooting is a very simple example of that. That kid likely had a whole lot of issues, but the reality is if there was no gun in the house, he wouldn't have shot his neighbour.
This doesn’t automatically lead to banning or restricting guns, there remain plenty of arguments against gun control. But the gun control debate just needs to begin with a basic position of honesty, and accept that when there’s more guns around, they’ll get used more.
I don't think there are many that would argue the fundamental truth of this statement, however in general the US also just has issues with more violence than other similarly developed nations, firearms or no, that should also be remembered in conjunction with that, though rates in general of assault & homicide (both with guns and without) have been dropping for decades now.
insaniak wrote: Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?
No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.
Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).
Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of those forgotten gun control historical fact... in which the Chief Justice distorted the meaning of citizen , in order to prevent free blacks from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights (and other important rights), which arguably added fuel to the Civil War fire.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't think there are many that would argue the fundamental truth of this statement, however in general the US also just has issues with more violence than other similarly developed nations, firearms or no, that should also be remembered in conjunction with that, though rates in general of assault & homicide (both with guns and without) have been dropping for decades now.
Oh, people argue against it. In every dakka thread on guns that I've worked up the will to enter, that's what I end up trying to explain to people.
And yeah, assault, homicide, and actually all violent crimes (and most property crimes) have been dropping for decades. Not that you can get most people to believe it. There are bigger factors than guns - income, education, improved policing methods, that all drive crime rates far stronger than guns.
Vaktathi wrote: Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).
Well said. The immediate example that leapt to my mind was the famed liberal governor* who had no problem with open carry, until the Black Panthers started doing it, and then signed a ban post-haste.
Why should only rich people be able to exercise their second amendment rights?
Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?
I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.
insaniak wrote: Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?
No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something. And we're asking it in a context where the government in question has an ugly history of using such methods for racist and/or classist reasons.
I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.
The difference is that the government doesn't put a $1000 tax on going to see a doctor because they want to keep medical care out of the hands of poor and/or non-white people.
Peregrine wrote: No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something. And we're asking it in a context where the government in question has an ugly history of using such methods for racist and/or classist reasons.
Yeah, and so it comes to a pretty simple question;
Do the added safety benefits justify the increased price to the consumer, especially given the price impact will be more acutely felt by lower income earners.
Of course, while the question is pretty simple, the answer is likely very complicated and extremely subjective. Such is life.
Peregrine wrote: No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something.
Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.
If the requirement is for firearms to be secured, and a cheap safe doesn't provide that security, then clearly a better form of security is required.
It doesn't become any more secure just because poor people can't afford anything better.
Peregrine wrote: No, we're asking whether the government should be allowed to artificially inflate the price of something.
Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.
There are three big issues here. First, the enforced requirement of a helmet only applies on public roads. If you're out on someone's private land, say dirtbiking or on a racetrack, a police officer can't roll around and ticket you for not wearing a helmet. Second, the additional cost of a helmet is very slight, it's not going to impact the practical affordability of a motorcycle for anyone. Third, motorcycles aren't covered as a federally protected right.
Vaktathi wrote: Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.
There are three big issues here. First, the enforced requirement of a helmet only applies on public roads. If you're out on someone's private land, say dirtbiking or on a racetrack, a police officer can't roll around and ticket you for not wearing a helmet. Second, the additional cost of a helmet is very slight, it's not going to impact the practical affordability of a motorcycle for anyone. Third, motorcycles aren't covered as a federally protected right.
And again, the big issue is that the helmet massively increases survivability compared to the cost. Is there a similar improved in public safety from better gun safes, trigger locks and all the other features? That's the question that needs to be asked.
insaniak wrote: Requiring someone to have appropriate facilities for storage of dangerous weapons isn't 'artificially inflating the price' of those weapons any more than requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet is 'artificially inflating the price' of motorbikes.
The difference here, besides the "constitutional right" issue, is that requiring a helmet is a very small cost relative to the price of the motorcycle itself while a high-end gun safe is significantly more expensive than a gun. Requiring the helmet has little or no effect on a person's ability to afford a motorcycle, requiring an expensive gun safe potentially takes gun ownership away from large numbers of people who could afford the gun itself.
It doesn't become any more secure just because poor people can't afford anything better.
No, but in the context of US history and politics we have to very seriously ask whether the requirement to own an expensive gun safe is a legitimate safety issue or simply yet another case of deliberately raising the price of something so that the "wrong" people can't afford it. You simply can not talk about this issue without considering the history of racist/classist politicians doing exactly that.
And again, the big issue is that the helmet massively increases survivability compared to the cost. Is there a similar improved in public safety from better gun safes, trigger locks and all the other features? That's the question that needs to be asked.
Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.
While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.
Psienesis wrote: Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".
While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.
Psienesis wrote: Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".
If that's the metric we're using, this country is desperately in need of some pool safety regulations. I hate to be that guy, but...
Vaktathi wrote: Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.
While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.
That isn't the answer though. The death rate from motor cycles is a key stat in determining the level of motor cycle safety that is needed, it's quite irrelevant to deciding what should be done about firearm safety.
The things that matter here are the number of child deaths, the number you could reasonably expect to reduce that by added safety features, the cost of those safety features, and the proportionate effect of that price increase on different parts of society.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
...
It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.
It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.
It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.
Psienesis wrote: Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".
While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.
To take the other side of that argument, I don't think it's just about the numbers though. Laws are an extension of our values and what we find acceptable. We have to accept a certain element of risk in life, kids will be kids and they will have accidents. However, there are also risks that we shouldn't have to accept, where someone else is negligent. I would argue that a child and an unlocked firearm is an entirely preventable situation. It's not a risk we ever need to take, regardless of how infrequently it happens. I don't think the argument that "it would have cost me an extra $100" has ever worked as defense for criminal negligence. If someone insists on owning a gun, then I don't see a problem with society insisting that they accept a certain amount of responsibility with that. You can't have one without the other.
Vaktathi wrote: Aye. In general, it appears that, at least from what data I can find, that firearm deaths from accidents are about an eighth of what motorcycle deaths are, are with helmets, at between 500 and 600 deaths per year out of over 300 million firearms in curculation, as opposed to ~4000-4800 (depending on source) motorcycle deaths in 2012 out of an estimated mere 9 million motorcycles.
While tragic, this is a very small number of deaths, particularly relative to motorcycles which have a lethal accident rate 200-300 times higher than that of firearms.
That isn't the answer though. The death rate from motor cycles is a key stat in determining the level of motor cycle safety that is needed, it's quite irrelevant to deciding what should be done about firearm safety.
The things that matter here are the number of child deaths, the number you could reasonably expect to reduce that by added safety features, the cost of those safety features, and the proportionate effect of that price increase on different parts of society.
The point I was trying to make with the comparison was that the scale of the issue was far several orders of magnitude less and the scale of the regulatory scope is several orders of magnitude larger, and thus the original comparison between the two was flawed.
Either way, the accident rate (as opposed to intentional slayings, collateral damage, or suicides) is relatively negligible.
Even compared with cars, with roughly equal numbers of cars and firearms in the US, the total death rates between both items are about identical, but the rate of accidental deaths with firearms is about 2% what it is with cars.
Given the relatively low absolute number of accidental firearms related deaths, and the even lower per-capita accident rate relative to other devices (which are far more rigorously tracked, regulated, and licensed) which are covered by safety mandates, would seem to indicate that firearm accidents are far below what you would expect to merit sweeping safety mandates. Additionally, without the same sort ability to regulate firearms as there are for motor vehicles, it is unlikely that such regulations could be adequately enforced to anything near the same degree they are on automobiles.
It's the use in homicides and suicides that accounts for 98%+ of firearms related deaths. Accidents, while tragic and headline grabbing, I think are really a tangent, one that could be as large a black hole for money and regulatory effort as one wanted, with a very limited cap on the number of lives to be saved (again, assuming accidents as opposed to homicides or suicides).
Psienesis wrote: Considering we have had no fewer than 2 children killed by improper handling and improper storage of weapons in 2 days, all signs point to "yes".
While not wanting to take away from the tragedy of any of these incidents, when we're talking a population of over three hundred million people, this is a statistically irrelevant number of deaths, particularly with an effectively equal number of weapons. Looking at a two day sample isn't going to give you the greatest big picture. ~10,000 children die in the US every year as a result of accidental causes. Even if we assume every single accidental firearms death involves a child (and not ol' bubba fergettin' t' unload ol' smokey) they're about 5-6% of accidental child deaths, if we assume that they're not all children, those numbers drop quickly. More children killed by firearms are killed either intentionally or as collateral damage.
To take the other side of that argument, I don't think it's just about the numbers though. Laws are an extension of our values and what we find acceptable. We have to accept a certain element of risk in life, kids will be kids and they will have accidents. However, there are also risks that we shouldn't have to accept, where someone else is negligent. I would argue that a child and an unlocked firearm is an entirely preventable situation. It's not a risk we ever need to take, regardless of how infrequently it happens. I don't think the argument that "it would have cost me an extra $100" has ever worked as defense for criminal negligence. If someone insists on owning a gun, then I don't see a problem with society insisting that they accept a certain amount of responsibility with that. You can't have one without the other.
To a degree, I agree. That said, I also don't think you need a massive gun safe to prevent a child from doing something bad with a firearm, a trigger/action lock will typically suffice, and, more fundamentally, I think that existing negligence laws typically cover issues where people do irresponsible things rather well (at least in every state I can recall). If you leave a gun where a child could access it and they do something bad with it, you can generally be held criminally liable.
Vaktathi wrote: The point I was trying to make with the comparison was that the scale of the issue was far several orders of magnitude less and the scale of the regulatory scope is several orders of magnitude larger, and thus the original comparison between the two was flawed.
Okay, I see your point about scale. I think it's a bit misleading to use another industry though. I mean, I could come back with a stat deaths from guns being many times more than deaths from falling off horses. WOuld that mean we shold never have any safety measures at all for riding horses? Or does it mean everything with many times more deaths than horse riding must have
It would, of course, mean nothing. No comparison to another industry really means anything. If there's an effective way to reduce deaths, and the cost and impact to various sectors of society are small relative to the lives saved, then it becomes a good thing. No matter what might be the case in other industries.
Even compared with cars, with roughly equal numbers of cars and firearms in the US, the total death rates between both items are about identical, but the rate of accidental deaths with firearms is about 2% what it is with cars.
But that's really not a useful indicator of anything. Obviously a product that's used for hours every single day will have a greater accident rate than a product. It doesn't mean there is more we must or can do about cars, and it doesn't mean there's nothing that could be done about firearms.
Given the relatively low absolute number of accidental firearms related deaths, and the even lower per-capita accident rate relative to other devices (which are far more rigorously tracked, regulated, and licensed) which are covered by safety mandates, would seem to indicate that firearm accidents are far below what you would expect to merit sweeping safety mandates. Additionally, without the same sort ability to regulate firearms as there are for motor vehicles, it is unlikely that such regulations could be adequately enforced to anything near the same degree they are on automobiles.
I don't agree that firearms are more regulated than cars. Car manufacturing, sale, purchase and use is massively regulated by all levels of government.
But your point about the difficulty of putting any such complaints in place on guns is a good one.
It's the use in homicides and suicides that accounts for 98%+ of firearms related deaths.
I think this is a really good point. Add in the point you make later about trigger locks being good enough to stop almost all accidents, and it's pretty much a complete opinion on what should be done. Meaning safes can't really be justified for this.
Whether there's a case for safes as a means of preventing theft is another issue.
Vaktathi wrote: To a degree, I agree. That said, I also don't think you need a massive gun safe to prevent a child from doing something bad with a firearm.
I think that's a different argument, I don't know if it's one I'm willing to get in to. I would certainly agree that a "massive" gun safe is not the only solution.
a trigger/action lock will typically suffice
From what I've seen of trigger locks, many guns can still be loaded and cocked with them on, and I've even seen people fire them by pulling backwards on the lock. Some are probably better than others, but a kid could still hold the gun, point the gun, stare down the barrel. I personally wouldn't consider a weapon secure with just a trigger lock on it, and it may actually be more dangerous if it leads people to think a weapon is secure when it isn't.
more fundamentally, I think that existing negligence laws typically cover issues where people do irresponsible things rather well (at least in every state I can recall). If you leave a gun where a child could access it and they do something bad with it, you can generally be held criminally liable.
I think laws can work well as a deterrent for a certain kind of person. Probably the kind of person who "thinks things through", and would act quite responsibly regardless. Unfortunately, there is that other kind of person that we just have to make do with punishing after the fact. For me that's a bit too little too late. No amount of prison time is going to bring back a dead girl. So I think no matter where you stand on the gun control line, everyone should be open to looking at preventative measures first.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
...
It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.
Good thing we have a Constitutional Republic then.
And it "works" because the moron who came up with it apparently failed to realise the glaring flaw with making an appointment to make sure you're doing something correctly.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.
Last I checked my house is not industrially zoned.
Kilkrazy wrote: It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.
I find it unreasonable to have to pay taxes to employ people to come round once a year to look at my locked up guns, leaving me free to then leave them all layed out and loaded for the other 364 days if I so choose.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.
Because other first world liberal democracies do not have a strong right to bear arms.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
Many industrial inspections are because harmful chemicals are present in these industries. Harmful chemicals, like those found in common cleaning supplies, in homes cause more deaths than firearms. Can we expect that all homeowners will have their domiciles inspected by the government to ensure that their cleaning products are stored safely?
Kilkrazy wrote: It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.
It is absolutely unreasonable. The government is coming into your home without probable cause to look for evidence of malpractice to strip you of a constitutional right, or levy criminal sanctions.
I think the idea of the inspections in the UK is just to check that you have a secure area. Obviously, checking that you use it would be beyond the scope of that kind of inspection. The UK also has fewer guns to inspect so the logistics of that system are more "realistic".
I think I would be diametrically opposed to unreasonable searches of any kind. However, I still have people come round and inspect stuff. The building I live in has quite regular gas safety and fire alarm inspections by law, they send me a letter when they are coming. And a guy comes round to read the electricity meter quite frequently (often completely unannounced). He comes in looks at the meter, and then leaves. It's hardly the same as the police busting in and tossing my room.
SOFDC wrote: Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.
Would it?
If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?
Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.
So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know. Yea that will last court scrutiny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote: With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.
Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.
Actually, when it comes to the Constitution, With rights come...rights. This isn't Spiderman.
Why should only rich people be able to exercise their second amendment rights?
Sorry, are you seriously asking why people with more money should be able to afford things that poor people can't?
I mean, you could make the same argument about food, or housing, or medical care. Or pretty much anything that costs money. People with more money can buy more things than people with no money.
These types of maneuvers have had a long history of being struck down by the courts. You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. There are no poll taxes here, and thats a big thing related to voter ID.
Smacks wrote: I think I would be diametrically opposed to unreasonable searches of any kind. However, I still have people come round and inspect stuff. The building I live in has quite regular gas safety and fire alarm inspections by law, they send me a letter when they are coming. And a guy comes round to read the electricity meter quite frequently (often completely unannounced). He comes in looks at the meter, and then leaves. It's hardly the same as the police busting in and tossing my room.
Well, this isn't the best analogy, in that the meter reading guy and the gas reading guy are actually checking on their own equipment, which is installed on your (or your landlord's) property per a contractual agreement which includes the occasional reading. If you want to have gas or electric, it's required that you allow them to check their equipment - and if you don't let them, the remedies would be a cessation of your service.
The problem isn't with proposing gun owners be forced to own safes, the problem is how such a law gets enforced - presumably, it's going to be a law enforcement official. The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter. It's a pretty big nose in the tent, I think.
Also as an aside, Frazzled has in fact been in favor of what we'd call "socialized medicine" so probably wouldn't agree with that last idea, actually. Obviously he can speak for himself but per his posting history, no, he's not been OK with the idea that only the wealthy should be able to afford medical insurance.
Why are you losing your time? They will defend their right to own guns, even if it means the world's end. No logic here; just caring about themselves alone.
Sad things like this will keep happening meanwhile. Why would they care? It's not like it was their child who did this/got killed, right?
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
I think more people are going to fail that test than you realise. Also, it is not there to check that you are storing your guns safely but rather to check that you have the capacity to do so. If an incident later occurs with your firearm due to you not using that capacity then you get prosecuted.
Also, people saying that burglars will not get put off by having to break into a safe. Yes they will. Burglars can get deterred by having a motion sensor light in your back yard, or a sturdy door. Once they're in the house they want to grab as much stuff of value as they can in a short amount of time because the longer they're in a house, the greater the chance of them being caught. Then they also want that stuff to be easy to carry so they don't have to make multiple trips.
Frazzled wrote: You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. .
It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't buy something that they can't afford to buy.
It's also not discrimination to tell someone that if they want to buy something that is potentially dangerous, they have to have somewhere safe to store it.
Ouze wrote: The problem isn't with proposing gun owners be forced to own safes, the problem is how such a law gets enforced - presumably, it's going to be a law enforcement official. The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter. It's a pretty big nose in the tent, I think.
For what it's worth, I think the whole inspection thing is a pretty terrible idea. I just chimed in because some of the arguments against it were also quite terrible.
Also as an aside, Frazzled has in fact been in favor of what we'd call "socialized medicine" so probably wouldn't agree with that last idea, actually. Obviously he can speak for himself but per his posting history, no, he's not been OK with the idea that only the wealthy should be able to afford medical insurance.
Sorry Frazzled. My comment was aimed in the general direction of the right, which is where you just happened to be standing this time. It's true that guns are the one issue conservatives are very liberal on, and it's funny to see familiar arguments coming the other way.
Frazzled wrote: So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.
So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant. 2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate. AS has been noted, I've been in favor of a competent Canadian/Swiss type system for some time, and am hopeful things will evolve that way and quickly. My current hope is that, in their zeal to repeal DA EVILZ OBAMAcare!!!! Congress is forced to shift it to a more workable real system, vs. the insurance scam it really is.
Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Why are you losing your time? They will defend their right to own guns, even if it means the world's end. No logic here; just caring about themselves alone.
Sad things like this will keep happening meanwhile. Why would they care? It's not like it was their child who did this/got killed, right?
Exactly. Thats because we're Amerikka. As Jimmy Carter once said: Try and Stop Us! MUAHAHAHAHAH!
Ouze wrote: The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.
I'm not sure that 'I shouldn't have to prove that I'm responsible enough to own a weapon in a way that might inadvertently reveal that I ignore the law when it suits me' is really a strong argument against the idea...
Frazzled wrote: So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world.
No, in 'my' world, only people who actually have a valid use for them can own firearms.
That's been working pretty well for the last 20 years.
In your world you have to hide when the herds of wallabies come through town...we know all about your deathworld, Insaniak. You can't hide your Sardauker training grounds from us.
Frazzled wrote: So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.
So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant.
2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate.
Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.
Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?
Frazzled wrote: 1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).
Frazzled wrote: So only wealthy homeowners can own firearms in your world. Good to know.
So that's okay when we're talking about medical insurance, but not okay when we're talking about guns? I feel there is a sad irony at work here.
1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights so your argument is irrelevant.
2. Having said that, Medicare, Medicade, the VA, and Obamacare reflect the belief that your attempted comparison is not accurate.
Its not ironic, our government is just incompetent.
Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?
Separate topic but low. Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed for anything is extremely difficult. If anything had a chance it would though.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).
And thats up to the People of Americaland to decide.
Ouze wrote: The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.
I'm not sure that 'I shouldn't have to prove that I'm responsible enough to own a weapon in a way that might inadvertently reveal that I ignore the law when it suits me' is really a strong argument against the idea...
I'm just illustrating the differences between a contractually agreed to agreement between a service provider, and what is essentially a total surrender of your right to be secure in your home and persons, because presumably anything the officer sees that is a violation is admissible. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.
Smacks wrote: Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).
As always, all roads lead to that the second amendment would need to be amended, and we don't have the political will to do so
. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.
Maybe that's a cultural thing... Because I see nearly no good reason not to.
6 months ago, I had a police officer here telling me that my brother in law had been found dead that morning. Frankly, I'm rather glad that conversation happened in my dining room instead of on my front doorstep.
That's the third time I've had a police officer in my house, every time for good reason and not once with a warrant. I remain strangely free from incarceration.
I know that the old 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' thing tends to be unpopular on the internet, but sometimes it's true.
Ouze wrote: The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.
Quite so, but if they spot anything obviously illegal they can call the cops just like anyone else. Your contract doesn't include covering up crimes. And IIRC electrical companies sometimes tip off the cops when your electrical consumption suddenly increases by 10-15 times. That usually means you've started a drug plantation.
insaniak wrote: That's the third time I've had a police officer in my house, every time for good reason and not once with a warrant. I remain strangely free from incarceration.
Well, perhaps your policing is less adversarial than ours is.
Maybe I'm just biased. I grew up with the NYPD, and they were not your friend, generally speaking.
For what it's worth, when the police in the UK have an appointment to come to examine your gun locker to ensure it meets the required legal standard, they are certainly less well armed than you are.
And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.
. There is really nearly no good reason to ever let a police officer into your home without a warrant, in my opinion.
Maybe that's a cultural thing... Beca
You bet it is. No person with a brain lets the PoPo in their house without a warrant unless they are reporting a crime.
Agreed. It seems kind of goofy, having cops come around to inspect your gun storage. It makes about as much sense as them coming around to make sure your liquor is secured so the kids can't get into it. After all, more than three times as many people in this country die from alcohol related causes as are victims in a gun related homicide.
Ouze wrote: The gas man or electric man can't decide to arrest you if you leave a bong on your table when they show up to read your meter.
Quite so, but if they spot anything obviously illegal they can call the cops just like anyone else. Your contract doesn't include covering up crimes. And IIRC electrical companies sometimes tip off the cops when your electrical consumption suddenly increases by 10-15 times. That usually means you've started a drug plantation.
they can call the cops, and the cops can stand out side my door while I make faces at them and do the heine dance. They still can't come in without a warrant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: For what it's worth, when the police in the UK have an appointment to come to examine your gun locker to ensure it meets the required legal standard, they are certainly less well armed than you are.
And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.
Your use of police men is not inclusive and shows your unconscious bias to the patriarchal hierarchy entwined throughout your society.
Just a quick aside but what do people here think is the chance that access to medical care gets written up as a new constitutional amendment?
Zero.
I'm not opposed to a Candadian/Swiss system if they can improve wait times.
There's a reason tons of Candadians come to the US for medical procedures..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: From what I've seen of trigger locks, many guns can still be loaded and cocked with them on, and I've even seen people fire them by pulling backwards on the lock. Some are probably better than others, but a kid could still hold the gun, point the gun, stare down the barrel. I personally wouldn't consider a weapon secure with just a trigger lock on it, and it may actually be
This is a pretty standard trigger lock that has come with all of my handguns.
All of shotguns have come with simple chamber cable locks.
When either is in place, it is literally impossible for the firearm to discharge.
Frazzled wrote: 1. Medical Care is not a reight enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Well perhaps it should be, and perhaps guns shouldn't be. Guns being a right while medicine isn't sounds like rather mixed up priorities (if not ironic).
Only if you confuse what the right to own firearms means in the US.
It's guaranteed so that the citizenry can defend itself, against individual assailants and it's government
Frazzled wrote: The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.
Requiring that a dangerous weapon be stored securely isn't a 'money test'. It's a requirement that a dangerous weapon be stored securely.
If you can't meet that requirement, then you have no place buying the weapon.
It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of responsibility.
Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?
I honestly don't understand why giving the Federal gov't more power to intrude on individual rights and privacy seems to be the proposed answer to every damned problem.
More kids die from accidental poisoning. Do we need Federal laws on 'securing' household cleaning supplies and medicines?
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.
No, the Federal Gov't does not represent the 'collective will of the whole society'. That is not and should not ever be its purpose. And even you and folks with your viewpoint don't think it should in ALL cases, just in the ones that match your viewpoint, which is exactly why it is a gak idea in all cases.
d-usa wrote: It's simply a issue with the 4th, and the reason why government can't just inspect your gun storage is the same reason they can't just come into your garage to see if your tag is expired and if the turn signals are working on your car even though car inspections are mandatory.
But, as I pointed out earlier, the government can inspect your plane at any time to make sure that your registration is current and all of your mandatory equipment is working. The FAA inspector can literally walk up to you at the airport, say "inspection time", and you have to immediately hand over the keys and let them do the inspection. So this idea that mandatory searches to verify compliance with certain laws are automatically unconstitutional has no support in the real world. The truth is that, while the government requires probable cause to make a general search of your house/car/whatever, they are permitted to require limited-scope searches to verify compliance.
According to the FAA precedent the government could stop you on the road, demand access to your car to check your paperwork, run a quick emissions test, etc. And you'd be laughed out of court if you tried to claim a 4th amendment defense, just like if you tried to do it with the FAA. The reason nobody does that with cars likely has more to do with the efficiency of centralized inspection locations rather than any constitutional issues.
And as for the "too much work" issue, of course it's too much work in the current political environment because nobody cares enough about safe gun storage to spend the money required. But the idea that every gun has to be inspected frequently is kind of a straw man. You just need to have enough inspections that people have a credible belief that they could be inspected, and a harsh enough punishment for failing the inspection that few people are tempted to try their luck by ignoring the storage laws. It's the same principle behind FAA ramp checks: sure, you're unlikely to be checked on any given trip (I've never even seen an FAA inspector AFAIK), but I bet the vast majority of pilots keep their paperwork in order because the slight convenience of not having to update your registration papers isn't enough to justify the risk of failing an inspection.
The reason the govt gets to inspect your plan is because the F in FAA stands for Federal. The Federal govt issues you a pilot's license and one of the conditions of that license is the inspection of your plan. Just like the F in FFL stands for Federal and one of the conditions of obtaining a Federal Firearms License is that the govt can send agents to inspect your store or private logbooks depending on the type of FFL you have. The Federal govt is issuing the license and gets to set the conditions pertaining to the maintaining that license.
Owning a firearm doesn't require any federal licenses. The Federal govt can't pass state or municipal laws and the Federal govt can't issue orders to state, county or municipal police. The only way to establish laws requiring random inspections of gun owner's homes to verify that guns are legally stored in the proper manner would be to pass new laws on the state and local level. Then those laws would have to withstand legal challenges regarding the 4th amendment.
It's not a violation for the ATF to come to my house and check the records I'm required to keep in order to maintain my 03 FFL because thats a condition I agreed to in order to obtain the FFL. Random police searches that are nothing more than a blind fishing expedition hoping to find illegal activity without having any evidence that illegal activities are taking place is not legal and has repeatedly been determined to be illegal by the courts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.
So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?
What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.
...
It's the way it works in all other first world liberal democracies.
It's not a waste of taxes any more than any other industrial safety law.
It isn't a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not an unreasonable search.
We will never have police conducting random inspections of gun storage practices in the homes of gun owners. That type of police activity is illegal and we have centuries of case law that establish that fact. Our judicial system does not work that way.
We have copyright laws but the police cannot conduct searches of peoples' computers/laptops/tablets/phones/etc to check and see if people are violating copyright laws without establishing reasonable suspicion or probably cause or obtaining a warrant. Inspecting hard drives just to check to make sure copyright laws weren't broken is illegal..
We have child pornography laws but the police canno conduct searches of peoples' computers/laptops/tablets/phones/etc to check and see if people are violating copyright laws without establishing reasonable suspicion or probably cause or obtaining a warrant. Inspecting hard drives just to check to make sure child pornography laws weren't broken is illegal.
We have laws against people being in possession of illegal drugs, illegal firearms, stolen property etc. but police cannot stop people on the street and search them without reasonable suspicion or probable cause or a warrant. Even Terry stops have strict limitations as to how a search can be conducted and they still require police to provide reasonable suspicion.
There is no special federal license or registration required for a US citizen to buy a firearm. All you need to do is fill out form 4473b and pass a NICS check (and there are plenty of people that are exempt from NICS checks under state laws). Since there is no special licensure or registration agreement in place there is no grounds for Federal authorities to place conditions, such as storage requirement inspections, on gun owners.
The Federal govt does require that all manufacturers include trigger locks with the firearms they sell. Under the interstate commerce clause the federal govt has the right to do this and gun manufacturers comply with this law and include trigger locks/chamber locks with all firearms sold.
State and municipal laws require proper storage. These laws are enforced the same way all other state and municipal laws are enforced; if you get caught breaking them you are prosecuted by state and/or municipal authorities.
The police, in the USA, have NEVER had the right to pre-emptively search people or homes just to see if any laws are being broken. They have always been required to comply with the 4th Amendment for the entirety of our country's existence.
You guys are creating a tempest in a teapot. There is no way that the proposed inspections of gun storage facilities can happen in the USA without massive overhauls of case law, federal and state legislation, the judicial system and the US and state constitutions. That will never happen and it is certainly not going to happen due to rare tragedies that have greater than 1:100,000,000 odds of happening and already result in prosecutions for violations of state and municipal gun storage laws when they do happen.
I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.
Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. The states and municipal authorites govern safety laws for the people and residences in their jurisdiction not the federal govt. It is literally impossible for the Federal govt to legally send state troopers or local PD into my house to inspect my gun storage methods. It's a matter for state and municipal authorities to legislate and most of them already have and it's a matter for state and local authorities to prosecute, which they do, after people get caught breaking the laws because that's how law enforcement works in the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.
Agreed. People need to understand that the Federal govt is the worst level of govt to use to legislate laws for individuals. The Federal leviathan only sees people in the aggregate, there is no nuance or understanding of specific circumstances and situations just giant boondoggles fraught with unintended consequences that are one size fits all laws that can never be as precise as they are supposed to be. People who feel the need for more laws need to understand that the only level of govt that actually understands what's going on is the local and state level. The Federal govt doesn't understand what's happening on the local level and that is deliberate and by design, there is no mechanism in place to make the Federal govt aware. The smallest piece of the country represented in the Federal govt is the congressional district and that can encompass multiple municipalities and thousands upon thousands of people and politicians representing those districts are just one of hundreds in Congress. There is no way for such a govt body to exert any kind of meaningful control over how one individual stores his shotgun in his house in a small town. That's a local problem that requires a local solution. Your county sherrif is going to have a greater impact on firearm safety in your town than your Congressman or Senator in DC.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.
Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...
If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.
See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.
Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...
If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.
See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.
However, support for gun rights/2nd amendment has risen considerably over the years.
Kilkrazy wrote: Because the federal government represents the collective will of the whole society, and you just represent your personal opinion.
Jurisdiction is still a pretty important concept. The federal govt doesn't have the right or the ability to pass laws that are beyond it's limited jurisdiction. ... ...
If US society wants the federal government to do something it will get done.
See votes for women, abortion, medicare and gay marriage, for examples.
You seem to have a very flawed understanding of the US govt. Women's suffrage was granted after decades of protests and activism by a constitutional amendment not a Federal Law. Abortion was determined by the Roe v Wade SCOTUS case, again not Federal legislation. Gay marriage is another example of a SCOTUS decision not Federal legislation. Please show me one Federal law that was passed that makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Congress still hasn't repealed DOMA.
The idea that Congress isn't actually hampered by jurisdictional limitations and the constitution/rule of law is absurd. Congress can't just pass whatever laws they want on whatever subject they want. Federal laws only apply to what is under Federal purview. The "will of the people" doesn't change that. Never has, never will.
whembly wrote: However, support for gun rights/2nd amendment has risen considerably over the years.
Now the anti-2nd'er can truly say:
Thanks Obama!
See, the funny thing about is, you're saying that ironically, but by any reasonable metric President Obama has been the weakest president on "gun control" in my lifetime. He let the AWB lapse with zero effort to try and renew it other than some lip service, which is good because the AWB was incredible stupid, he's signed 2 gun laws and both actually strengthened gun rights, and he passed a bunch of executive orders that either have nothing to do with gun control, are simply a statement of priority, or have no teeth whatsoever.
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapon ban, endorsed the Brady bill, signed the FOPA (which banned all new machine guns, making them only the purview of the very wealthy), signed a bill as governor banning open carry, and is remembered as being a strong defender of the second amendment, because feth your facts, I have strong feelings.
You can truly say that because:
a) He knows it's a losing battle to push for stricter gun-controls
b) rather politicize it to keep the anti-gunz crowd riled up
He’s not about to try building consensus on gun policy in good faith (same goes to Bloomberg, Brady Campaign, etc). He’ll take the same approach he’s taken throughout his presidency, which is to delegitimize opponents of his proposed sweeping comprehensive agenda as irrational, self-interested enemies of decency and progress.
Like. Every. Political. Football. In. Existence.
By any reasonable measure, if Obama wanted to push for more gun control agendas, he would. But, it's to his benefit to keep the status quo and keep this issue "hot".
Yes, that's extremely cynical, but he had his chance in the first two years of his Presidency, with having Democratic majority in both houses too...
CptJake wrote: Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?
If your gun was only a danger to you then I'm sure no one would care what you did with it. The problem is, your gun is a danger to other members of society too. You can argue that it isn't, but we're posting in a topic where a little girl was killed because someone owned a gun and didn't secure it properly. Other people should not have to risk their lives just because you want to own a gun, which is why your own standard of stored securely might not be good enough. When guns stop killing people who aren't their owners, then people who aren't gun owners will stop taking an interest in gun safety.
whembly wrote: You can truly say that because:
a) He knows it's a losing battle to push for stricter gun-controls
b) rather politicize it to keep the anti-gunz crowd riled up
So far as A, absolutely. He knows which battles are worth fighting, and which ones to soft-pedal, just like every other politician, ever.
I would disagree on B, because... to what end? Keep them riled up so they can continue to do absolutely nothing notable? Come on. We're coming up on the 7th annual "Obama's Gonna Take Your Guns" AR-15 price hike. It's time to stop playing pretend, IMO.
CptJake wrote: Why should the federal Gov't be able to dictate what meets MY requirement for 'stored securely'? Or for that matter have any say in wether or not I feel the need to 'secure' my firearms?
If your gun was only a danger to you then I'm sure no one would care what you did with it. The problem is, your gun is a danger to other members of society too. You can argue that it isn't, but we're posting in a topic where a little girl was killed because someone owned a gun and didn't secure it properly. Other people should not have to risk their lives just because you want to own a gun, which is why your own standard of stored securely might not be good enough. When guns stop killing people who aren't their owners, then people who aren't gun owners will stop taking an interest in gun safety.
Is it a FEDERAL responsibility to ensure safety in this way?
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
As for the part I highlighted in orange: My firearms are not a danger to me. At all. And, I just checked, none of MY firearms are missing so none of mine were involved in this one case which is a rarity among deaths in this age group anyway. And 100s of millions of other legally owned firearms were also not involved and never will be involved in this type of case. As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
CptJake wrote: As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly. It's mostly a risk to you and your family, which is as I said before, why it is mostly your business. If you suddenly start poisoning the general public then people will be up your ass about it pretty damn quick, regardless of the percentage of the population you didn't kill.
As for the federal thing. That was my bad if you were suggesting that it should be state law I must have misunderstood you. I assumed you were talking about your own standards by the way you capitalized the word MY. If you agree that society deserves some input at a state level, then we are back in agreement.
Also I'm not having a gak fit. My first post in the topic was to say that I don't think this is a gun control issue. I don't agree with inspections. The only reason I'm posting here at all is because people keep making bad arguments which I think deserve contradicting.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
Two days is an absurdly small sample size. Likewise, we're talking a nation of over 300 million people with about as many firearms. That is a *very* low rate of incidence that you would struggle to reduce significantly through preventative legal means without having to resort to measures that would run into significant legal barriers.
I don't agree that firearms are more regulated than cars. Car manufacturing, sale, purchase and use is massively regulated by all levels of government.
Yes, apologies if I didn't make it clear, I unfortunately don't have time to address your entire post (which made valid points), but wanted to quickly address this. I was acknoledging that automobiles are much more regulated than firearms, and my point really was that even with all the regulation that automobiles & motorcycles have, their accident rates are orders of magnitude larger than with firearms, showing that, at least in terms of accidents (as opposed to homicides & suicides), that extensive safety regulation mandates probably don't have the same public-safety interest.
CptJake wrote: As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly.
No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
CptJake wrote: As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly. It's mostly a risk to you and your family, which is as I said before, why it is mostly your business. If you suddenly start poisoning the general public then people will be up your ass about it pretty damn quick, regardless of the percentage of the population you didn't kill.
I think you are missing an important part of the equation here.
You admit that that bleach isn't going to hurt anyone unless deliberate action is taken.
You fail to see that the same is true for guns. Unless deliberate action(or gross negligence, which can also happen with the bleach) is taken than nobody is going to get hurt by my gun being in my nightstand or closet.
Sure, my hypothetical kid could walk up to my gun and shoot himself or someone. He could also drink the gallon container of bleach, or get someone else to drink it. In either case, I need to teach him not to drink the bleach or play with the gun. Its not the gun/bleach that is the issue here, the issue is how I've trained my kid.
If anything, the bleach is far more dangerous. Little kids eat anything and everything. He's far more likely to get the cap off a bottle of bleach and take a swig than he is to find a gun, load the gun, switch the safety off, and then manage to pull the trigger while its aiming at himself or someone else.
Sure, the gun might have been loaded and left around with the safety off and a round in the chamber. But thats just general negligence, no different than leaving a bottle of bleach around with no lid where the kid can get it.
CptJake wrote: As I previously pointed out, many kids are killed by accidental poisoning, yet I don't see you or others raising a gak fit and wanting Federal laws to govern how one must store household cleaners and medicines.
Because there is no danger that someone walking past your house will suddenly be dead because you didn't put the lid on the bleach properly.
No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Does the yard count? If so I have to over here...and just remove...this...and neutralize the tripwire here...and..ok yea I completely agree!
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
They absolutely have it covered and you're making a very flawed argument with that statement. Gun storage laws are the subject of the same enforcement asevery other law. When you are caught breaking the law you are charged with a crime and prosecuted. That's how the judicial system and law enforcement works in this country. There is no legal way for the police to pre-emptively apprehend you for breaking a law. You are innocent until proven guilty and the police cannot search people or residences looking for violations without establishing reasonable suspicion/probable cause or getting a warrant.
Gun storage laws punish people who are caught improperly storing their guns just like speeding laws punish people who are caught speeding, burglary laws punish people that are caught stealing, etc. Our police force is entirely reactionary not pre-emptive.
Drunk driving is illegal yet people are still maimed and killed by drunk driving because the law doesn't stop people from driving drunk it only punishes people after they are caught driving drunk. That doesn't mean that drunk driving laws are ineffective because there is no other way for drunk driving laws to work. The police can't arrest somebody for driving drunk until they are actually driving drunk and by that point the drunk driver is already a danger to him/herself and others.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.
And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.
And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?
Additionally, to claim that gun storage laws weren't discouraging improper gun storage you'd have to show that crimes caused by improper gun storage were increasing in frequency (which nobody has shown to be the case) and that state and local authorities were failing to prosecute people who violated gun storage and handling laws (which nobody has shown to be the case). If crimes caused by improper storage aren't increasing and prosecutors are prosecuting violators then the law is working as well as it can.
There's no way to legislate away the ability of people to make bad decisions we can only punish people for making bad decisions that cause harm to others.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.
And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?
Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.
Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.
In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.
683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.
If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.
Here's another statistical number.
2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.
That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.
So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.
CptJake wrote: No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.
CptJake wrote: No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.
You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.
Really, guns are so far down on the threat list that they are a non-issue. We're talking a level so small it could be the margin of error for another category.
Ouze wrote: Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapon ban, endorsed the Brady bill, signed the FOPA (which banned all new machine guns, making them only the purview of the very wealthy), signed a bill as governor banning open carry, and is remembered as being a strong defender of the second amendment, because feth your facts, I have strong feelings.
Talk Radio is responsible for much of this. It seems that they're confusing Ronald Reagan the politician with Ronald Reagan's characters in the movies he did. Talk Radio is also quick to play his (honestly) inspiring speeches but slow to show the overall track record. Reagan did many great things as President but he also made many compromises with the Democrats to get those things done. The hard right tend to forget that as they chomp on the red meat being tossed to them by their favorite host.
CptJake wrote: No one walking by my house, or the houses of the owners of hundreds of millions of legally owned firearms is really in any danger they will suddenly be dead either. You're being silly to imply otherwise.
Apart from the little girl we are discussing. It evidently does happen, and its especially frightening for people because you can't defend against it. It's okay for you to say the risk is small, but you're not the only one taking it. Some people don't see why they should be forced to take that risk at all.
It's an extremely rare occurence. There is no evidence that children are shooting other children with improperly stored firearms with anything remotely approaching regularity. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners in the US in possession of hundreds of millions of guns and children shooting children with improperly stored guns rarely happens. You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Everything that happened in the incident in the OP is already illegal. People are going to be prosecuted and punished for what happened. That is the system we have, it is not perfect but it has been in place for the entirety of our national history. We cannot twist the system into something different just for one minor aspect of gun ownership. That would not be legal or practical.
Grey Templar wrote: You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.
That's probably not true. I'm pretty good at crossing the street. I look both ways, wait for the lights to change and the cars to stop and everything. There are lots of things I can do to stay safe crossing the road (including avoiding busy intersections). I'm not so good at dodging bullets.
Grey Templar wrote: You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.
That's probably not true. I'm pretty good at crossing the street. I look both ways, wait for the lights to change and the cars to stop and everything. There are lots of things I can do to stay safe crossing the road (including avoiding busy intersections). I'm not so good at dodging bullets.
This begs the question; just how many times has your neighbor tried to shoot you?
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.
And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storage laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?
Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.
Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.
In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.
683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.
If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.
Here's another statistical number.
2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.
That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.
So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.
You're mixing in intention homicides with accidental deaths. If you want to do that, you need to add in intentional homicides by other than guns.
That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.
SilverMK2 wrote: That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.
Give me a break, to think you can come up with federal legislation and enforcement there of to reduce less than 50 accidental child deaths a year in a population of over 300 million people is just silly. That is the bad assumption being made in this topic.
And obviously the chances of death per encounter are high enough for poisoning, drowning, and the other leading accidental causes of death because they have orders of magnitude more victims.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
The laws for criminally negligent manslaughter have that covered if they'd enforce them.
Prestor Jon wrote: You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?
Okay, I just saw a headline claiming that gun sales have jumped. Given that this is probably driven by the President's recent remarks, I have to wonder if he doesn't secretly have stock in some of these firearm manufacturers. If not, he's really missing out.
for 0-24 I see the following for homicide firearms, which does not include "unintentional discharge" deaths from some kid holding a gun and it going off on "accident"
39 for 1-4
48 for 5-9
94 for 10-14
3,704 for 15-24
so for kids up to 24 that's 3884. Which is almost 50% more than the people who died in 9/11.
It is almost twice the number of US servicemen who died in war in Afghanistan during the years 2001 to 2014, except of course this is over 1 year in the US compared to 14 years of war...
The website iCasualties.org lists, as of October 1, 2015, 2,271 servicemembers as having died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.
If we assume the homicide rate is more or less steady, then we have 54,376 people between the age of 1-24 who died in the US during the duration of the Afghanistan war in which 2,271 US service-people died.
Yep drowning kills a lot of kids too. Ironically that number decreases as kids get older until they hit they 15-24 mark and then puberty which has been shown in studies to make people actually stupider in many regards and we see unintentional drowning numbers spike up 500%...yep.
However I was not mixing intentional homicides with accidental deaths. That number is 11,208, and does not included unintentional homicides with firearms.
Drowning is drowning, its hard to prevent that. It is not hard to require people to lock up their guns. Guns and drowning are not related, usually, and one can be reduced by requiring people lock their guns up. Drowning is hard to discuss because those numbers are for all sources of drowning. Boating, swimming pools, bath tubs, etc.
regardless in the year 2013 more people died from firearm related homicides in the 1-24 age group in t he US than US service people died in the entirety of the afghan war/occupation over 14 years.
More toddlers died from firearm homicide than police died in the line of duty the same year.
Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.
Prestor Jon wrote: You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?
What a silly argument that can be used for anything. You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.
We're talking about unintentional deaths. Which are listed on that graph. Which you ignored.
Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.
We're talking about unintentional deaths. Which are listed on that graph. Which you ignored.
Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.
This makes little to no sense.
You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.
Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.
You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.
Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.
Okay, so you're claiming the instance of 11 year olds committing murders with improperly secured firearms is high? Is that what you're driving at?
Unless you're honestly trying to liken this event to the murders committed with firearms in the 15-24 category?
I mean, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure nearly all of those murders committed by 15-24 year olds are performed because Pa forgot to lock up his shotgun. Couldn't possibly be gang activity or anything like that.
Unless you're advocating that gangs be held responsible for properly storing their firearms, too.
Frazzled wrote: You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.
You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.
And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.
Frazzled wrote: You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.
You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.
And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.
You can use the same argument for absolutely anything. Courts have already ruled you need a warrant.
SilverMK2 wrote: That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.
Give me a break, to think you can come up with federal legislation and enforcement there of to reduce less than 50 accidental child deaths a year in a population of over 300 million people is just silly. That is the bad assumption being made in this topic.
Just pointing out the flaw in your statement and reasoning.
CptJake wrote: I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.
I can't speak for others, but I see it as a good/desirable thing because our last mass shooting was 20 years ago, as a result of our Federal government taking it on themselves to remove guns from the hands of people who don't actually need them.
Nitpicking over which arm of the government should do it is ultimately a red herring. If it were being suggested that State governments should do the same thing, there would be just as much resistance.
How many rapes before and after?
How many home invasions before and after?
How many murders before and after?
How many attempted murders before and after?
How many batteries before and after?
How many robberies before and after?
Prestor Jon wrote: You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?
State and municipal laws requiring safe storage of firearms already exist. I'm not sure why some people in this thread seem to think they don't. There are laws that criminalize negligent behavior that allows children or other prohibited person to access firearms. They have existed for a long time. People get prosecuted when they are caught breaking them. Laws that criminalize negligent behavior don't actually pre-emptively stop people from being negligent; this is true for all such laws whether they pertain to gun storage or not. Gun storage laws are as effective at combating negligent behavior as they can be within the confines of our legal system as it currently exists.
Abstract
CONTEXT:
Since 1989, several states have passed laws that make gun owners criminally liable if someone is injured because a child gains unsupervised access to a gun. These laws are controversial, and their effect on firearm-related injuries is unknown.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine if state laws that require safe storage of firearms are associated with a reduction in child mortality due to firearms.
DESIGN:
An ecological study of firearm mortality from 1979 through 1994.
SETTING:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia.
PARTICIPANTS:
All children younger than 15 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Unintentional deaths, suicides, and homicides due to firearms.
RESULTS:
Laws that make gun owners responsible for storing firearms in a manner that makes them inaccessible to children were in effect for at least 1 year in 12 states from 1990 through 1994. Among children younger than 15 years, unintentional shooting deaths were reduced by 23% (95% confidence interval, 6%-37%) during the years covered by these laws. This estimate was based on within-state comparisons adjusted for national trends in unintentional firearm-related mortality. Gun-related homicide and suicide showed modest declines, but these were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS:
State safe storage laws intended to make firearms less accessible to children appear to prevent unintentional shooting deaths among children younger than 15 years.
28 states have child access prevention laws, 11 states have safe storage or gun lock laws, 8 states have some form of "assault weapon ban"
Definitions
Any Child Access Prevention Law?: states with laws in place designed to prevent children from accessing firearms, including laws imposing crimimal liability when a child gains access to a firearm as a result of negligant firearm storage, laws preventing people from providing firearms to minors, and safe storage requirements that apply to all firearms in the state. State definitions of "minor" may range from children under 14 to those under 18.
Any Safe Storage or Gun Lock Requirment?: any state law concerning firearm locking devices in place. Massachusetts is the only state that requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place; California, Connecticut, and New York impose gun locking requirements in certain situations. State laws may apply to cetain types of guns only, such as handguns or assault weapons, and may be required during gun sales by dealers and/or private gun sales. In five states (CA, CT, MD, MA, NY), locking devices must meet state standards, or be approved by a state agency for effectiveness.
Assault Weapons Ban?: a state law banning assault weapons, by name, or by specific features of the gun that make a gun an assault weapon. State laws also vary as to which activities are prohibited, which may include the manufacture, transporation, sale, shipping, transfer, purchase, reciept, possession, distribution, or transportation of assault weapons.
Text of the 2005 Federal law Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that requires all manufacturers of firearms to inlcude safety devices such as trigger locks or chamber locks with all firearms sold.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm
Frazzled wrote: You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.
You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.
And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.
You keep citing the FAA checks and you're still wrong about why they're not a violatoin of the 4th amendment. The FAA issues you a pilot's license and as part of your qualifications for obtaining that license you consent to plane checks. State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.
The Federal govt also issues Federal Firearms Licenses and part of the qualifications for obtaining a Federal firearms license is consenting to searches of your business or private records of gun sales and purchases under that FFL. Those searches are not a violation of the 4th amendment because you have previously consented to those searches in order to obtain a license. There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.
You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.
Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.
Okay, so you're claiming the instance of 11 year olds committing murders with improperly secured firearms is high? Is that what you're driving at?
Unless you're honestly trying to liken this event to the murders committed with firearms in the 15-24 category?
I mean, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure nearly all of those murders committed by 15-24 year olds are performed because Pa forgot to lock up his shotgun. Couldn't possibly be gang activity or anything like that.
Unless you're advocating that gangs be held responsible for properly storing their firearms, too.
I am saying you can't call that "unintentional" unintentional firearm related deaths comes from unintentional discharge of the weapon, and does happen.
Its not reasonable to bring up unintentional firearm deaths in regards to the topic put up by the OP because the incident is not unintentional. I don't have any numbers on how many deaths are caused by guns being used in homicides from someone other than their owner, or unintentional deaths related to guns not being properly stored and someone other than the owner gets their hands on it. However It is disingenuous to say that gun deaths in kids is 39 because the unintentional deaths is that low. That is not a true statement. Obviously some of the unintentional gun deaths are people playing with guns and it goes off, and obviously some of the homicide deaths are kids going into their families home, getting the gun(s) from wherever they are improperly stored, and using them with intent shoot at someone. I know 15-24 is a big range but a large part of that range is not even allowed to own any type of gun, and a larger portion is not allowed to own handguns.
There are kids that have access to their parents/families guns and then use them when they should not be using that has nothing to do with "gang" activity. I am not sure how gangs are even involved in this discussion, is it because they commit crimes? An 11 year old walking into a house to get a gun with the intent of shooting someone, getting the gun, going outside, pointing at someone, and pulling the trigger with the intent to shoot someone is a crime. Yes?
Laws are laws, if anyone that has a gun should have to properly store it, that includes gang members. Perhaps gang member has gun, gets busted in house, gun is not properly stored while not in use-wanted to take selfie with gold chains and 10 100's with gun on table- so more jail time on top of jail time for anything else they may possibly have charged against them.
Whats with the gang member talk? Should everything with guns be legal unless your in a gang? A lot of crimes are committed by non gang members. In 2012 gangs committed 2,300 homicides [not all of them were gun related..]. 2013 had 11,200 gun related homicides. So we can pretty safely guess the vast majority of gun related homicides have no relation to gangs. Since we have some data for that. So the other 4/5ths of homicides which are not gang related, must come from somewhere. Maybe Pa should lock up his shotgun more.
Nearly 70% of those homicides (so nearly all of that 2300) are going to fall within the 15-24 demographic that's being cited here to include (children).
Additionally, a larger part of that 15-24 range (70%) can legally purchase a handgun.
Nearly 70% of those homicides (so nearly all of that 2300) are going to fall within the 15-24 demographic that's being cited here to include (children).
Additionally, a larger part of that 15-24 range (70%) can legally purchase a handgun.
15-24 age range is not the same as 18-34 age range from that report you are linking. 23% of the the 18 and under deaths were gang related, which tracks with what I said. 68% of homicides between 18-34, a much different age group than 15-24, are gang related.
the legal age to buy handguns, is 21+.
Homicides were most often committed with handguns
The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increased
with age of the victim until age 17, where it peaked at 79%, and
declined thereafter
So most of the homicides are happening in an age range where people cannot legally buy a gun, at least in the 2008 report you found. My guess its about the same now still. They are most often committed with a handgun, not purchasable until 21+, of which the 21+ers in the 15-24 age range makes up ~40% of the people of that age bracket. If the gun related homicides are peaking at age 17 we can guess that most of the deaths in the 15-24 bracket are happening around 15-18. Which falls under the 18 and under where 23% are gang related..
Gang
violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all
homicides in 2008
again why are you talking about gangs.
They don't change anything about people misrepresenting the OP topic as an unintentional firearm death, to blow down the numbers of how many people die to firearms in the US under the age of 24. Which is approximately 25x more than the amount of people who died in the afghan war/occupation over a period of 14 years.
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.
I'd be surprised if any hard data at all existed as to how many deaths occurred due to insecurely stored firearms, especiallly when the police so often soft pedal it as "a tragic accident" instead of "criminally negligent homicide".
I know it's a number >20 or so a year or so, because I feel like I read at least that many stories a year, but more than that, I doubt it can really be quantified. The CDC keeps numbers on youth firearm deaths but doesn't break it down in that way and I don't think anyone else does either.
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.
Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?
I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.
maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.
So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?
I think Gang Related was an underrated gem; probably the best performance of Tupac's movie career. I mean, it's pretty rare for him to be the voice of reason in a role.
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.
Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?
I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.
maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.
So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?
1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.
2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.
The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think more people are going to fail that test than you realise. Also, it is not there to check that you are storing your guns safely but rather to check that you have the capacity to do so. If an incident later occurs with your firearm due to you not using that capacity then you get prosecuted.
So with gun locks included with every factory new firearm, and also available free you think people are still going to fail? Enough to justify the cost of a new Federal Agency and the erosion of the 4th Amendment?
insaniak wrote: It's also not discrimination to tell someone that if they want to buy something that is potentially dangerous, they have to have somewhere safe to store it.
Would a gun lock count, or would it specifically be a place to store it that must be safe?
insaniak wrote: No, in 'my' world, only people who actually have a valid use for them can own firearms.
Just like here. Self defense, sport shooting, collecting, hunting are all valid reasons
Frazzled wrote: You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. .
It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't buy something that they can't afford to buy.
The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.
I didn't think anyone actually advocated for poll taxes any more
insaniak wrote: I know that the old 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' thing tends to be unpopular on the internet, but sometimes it's true.
Pretty unpopular in real life too
Kilkrazy wrote: And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.
Source please
Grey Templar wrote: You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.
Really, guns are so far down on the threat list that they are a non-issue. We're talking a level so small it could be the margin of error for another category.
This is how much firearm accidents contribute to accidental deaths
insaniak wrote: I can't speak for others, but I see it as a good/desirable thing because our last mass shooting was 20 years ago, as a result of our Federal government taking it on themselves to remove guns from the hands of people who don't actually need them.
Nitpicking over which arm of the government should do it is ultimately a red herring. If it were being suggested that State governments should do the same thing, there would be just as much resistance.
whembly wrote: Re-read the 10th amendment. Then show me where/what empowers the Federal Government to do what you're advocating.
We're already advocating undermining the 2nd and 4th Amendments, why not add another one as well. We could even garrison soldiers in homes too just to make sure the firearms are securely stored
Prestor Jon wrote: You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.
Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?
What a silly argument that can be used for anything. You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.
I don't see how I have killed anything. As I have quite clearly spelled out I am against inspections, I'm against the fedral requirement for a gun cabinet. I really don't know what your problem is. Too much moonshine?
Prestor Jon wrote: State and municipal laws requiring safe storage of firearms already exist. I'm not sure why some people in this thread seem to think they don't.
I'm not sure either, because I was wasn't one of them. I have already said I'm against the idea, you quoted me saying it, and I said before that I would be diametrically opposed to unwarranted police searches. So all your arguments about the 4th amendment and changing the judicial system aught to be directed at someone else.
My only argument was in response to people basically saying that gun deaths aren't significant enough to worry about. Which is really quite a grotesque argument. People do have a right to be concerned, and the first amendment guarantees them the right to voice that concern. Telling people it's none of their business is wrong, both ethically and objectively.
Prestor Jon wrote: State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.
Yes, you figured out the key difference here: a limited-scope search (FAA inspection) is legal, a general "let's see if we can find anything" search (checking the plane for drugs) is not. Based on that precedent a limited-scope "are your guns stored legally" search would be legal, a general "you're a gun owner so we can look at anything we want" search would not. Inspecting your gun safe does not give the police permission to search the rest of your house for drugs, check your computer for evidence, etc, so your fourth amendment rights are intact.
There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.
That is a problem that can be fixed. In fact, putting guns under federal control and removing the state-to-state differences would be a good thing.
They can be concerned, and voice it. And I can be concerned and voice it when they also advocate infringing on my rights and giving the gov't a massive increase in intrusive power.
It may be grotesque, but look at the CDC stats. Gun deaths just are not that big compared to many other causes except when you are talking homicides or suicides (this is age agnostic).
Murder, regardless of weapon, is already illegal, and if you use a firearm it tends to add 10+ years to the sentencing for it.
No one here has proposed ANY law that would have a chance to meaningfully change any of the stats unless they start advocating for confiscation or massively intrusive searches to ensure 'secure storage'. Most of the anti-gun crowd here and in general have no idea what state and local laws already exist, or what federal laws exist.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
Yet gun ownership has returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides have not increased
Indeed. There was actually a study done a decade after Port Arthur that showed that the gun ban had no apparent effect on homicides, which had already been slowly declining (although there was a reduction in suicides). The suggestion at that time was that most gun related homicides happen with illegal weapons anyway. Of course, it's impossible to say whether they would have continued that same gradual decline without the gun ban... all we have is the statistics that show that the decline continued at more or less the same rate with the ban in place.
But then, preventing gun homicides in their entirety was never the primary aim of the law. Preventing another Port Arthur was.
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.
Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?
I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.
maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.
So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?
1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.
2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.
The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:
You'll have a hard time making any type of case 'unsecured firearms' are the cause.
Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.
I agree you can't get a lot of other information out of that in regards to guns being used in crimes by family members other than the guns owner.
The points however are:
Gun deaths are significant to worry about. They greatly outnumber in one year alone the amount of people who died in Military service during a period of 14 years while our country was at war.
From other data people under the legal age to by a handgun are the victims of most murders. If there is a disproportionate amount of these murders from people much older or younger than them? Possible, not likely. Most people in this age range interact mostly with their peers, outside of their family. I would have a hard time believing that most people are murdered by someone outside of their age range. I am having a hard time imagining a lot of 35+ year olds shooting 15-24 year olds for any reason that would be of significantly high % for these 8k gun homicides. I have a much easier time imagining 15-24 year olds having reason to shoot other 15-24 year olds that is of significant % in relation to the 8k gun homicides.
There are no statistics showing where the guns come from in these homicides.
However most of them are not gang related, and most of them are happening from people in an age range that can not legally purchase a gun. I somehow doubt they are coming from illegal gun sales to 15-18 year old, however I have no actual statistical data or proof to say so. Similarily I don't think anyone has statistical proof showing where most guns in crimes against various groups comes from.
So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"
Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.
These guns are from somewhere.
In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.
Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.
No. I did not. You are mistakenly attributing someone else's position to me, even though I've already told you that you are wrong.
So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"
Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.
These guns are from somewhere.
In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.
And you are wrong here, because, as I mentioned, you are confusing ages of victims with ages of perps. You have not shown any source showing numbers of murders committed by 15-24 year olds. None.
Frankly, you are so blinded by your hatred of guns that you are not making anything close to a coherent argument. Everything you are saying is based on data that does not show what you want it to show.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
Yet gun ownership has returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides have not increased
Indeed. There was actually a study done a decade after Port Arthur that showed that the gun ban had no apparent effect on homicides, which had already been slowly declining (although there was a reduction in suicides). The suggestion at that time was that most gun related homicides happen with illegal weapons anyway. Of course, it's impossible to say whether they would have continued that same gradual decline without the gun ban... all we have is the statistics that show that the decline continued at more or less the same rate with the ban in place.
But then, preventing gun homicides in their entirety was never the primary aim of the law. Preventing another Port Arthur was.
So if gun ownership has returned to the levels that existed before the ban, and no further Port Arthur style attack has happened (terror incident aside) then it could be said that the ban, forced buy back, etc. actually had no discernible effect other than feel good security theater.
This is what happens when politicians decide that we must "do something". We end up with ineffective legislation that undermines legal rights, and does nothing constructive.
Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.
No. I did not. You are mistakenly attributing someone else's position to me, even though I've already told you that you are wrong.
So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"
Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.
These guns are from somewhere.
In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.
And you are wrong here, because, as I mentioned, you are confusing ages of victims with ages of perps. You have not shown any source showing numbers of murders committed by 15-24 year olds. None.
Frankly, you are so blinded by your hatred of guns that you are not making anything close to a coherent argument. Everything you are saying is based on data that does not show what you want it to show.
I think you are so blinded that you assume I hate guns.
I don't hate guns, and to be honest if the right to own a gun was taken away from me I would feel less safe.
I personally no longer own any firearms, because I have children in my house and don't want to keep firearms there and have no extra time to go to a shooting range- but I feel safer knowing I can go out and purchase a firearm again. I just don't believe having a firearm in the house makes my family safer, because having kids I know they are curious, get into trouble, and of the decisions they have to make I don't want them to come across one of my firearms, while "exploring" places they shouldn't with keys they shouldn't and have to make the decision to play with it or leave it alone. I also do not feel a need to teach my children to use guns, that's something they can decide when they are legally old enough to have one if they want. These are my beliefs and no one else needs to abide by them. The chance one of my kids dies from something while 1-24 is small, however I don't think adding to that chance is really worth simply owning a gun to go shooting with. I say that, because in my lifetime I have needed the guns I once owned, 0 times.
I think people should be responsible for the guns they own, and store them safely. Many victims of gun violence are under the legal age to buy guns, and there is most likely a large amount of guns that either intentionally or unintentionally end up being the weapon that causes injury or death that come from those peoples homes/family- and not from being purchased illegally or stolen.
Most victims of gun related homicide are 15-24. Do you think they are being killed mostly by people 25-34? 35+? There's no data on the age of who is killing certain age groups, but honestly what do you think?
A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.
You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.
Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?
I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.
maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.
So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?
1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.
2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.
The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:
You'll have a hard time making any type of case 'unsecured firearms' are the cause.
Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.
I agree you can't get a lot of other information out of that in regards to guns being used in crimes by family members other than the guns owner.
The points however are:
Gun deaths are significant to worry about. They greatly outnumber in one year alone the amount of people who died in Military service during a period of 14 years while our country was at war.
From other data people under the legal age to by a handgun are the victims of most murders. If there is a disproportionate amount of these murders from people much older or younger than them? Possible, not likely. Most people in this age range interact mostly with their peers, outside of their family. I would have a hard time believing that most people are murdered by someone outside of their age range. I am having a hard time imagining a lot of 35+ year olds shooting 15-24 year olds for any reason that would be of significantly high % for these 8k gun homicides. I have a much easier time imagining 15-24 year olds having reason to shoot other 15-24 year olds that is of significant % in relation to the 8k gun homicides.
There are no statistics showing where the guns come from in these homicides.
However most of them are not gang related, and most of them are happening from people in an age range that can not legally purchase a gun. I somehow doubt they are coming from illegal gun sales to 15-18 year old, however I have no actual statistical data or proof to say so. Similarily I don't think anyone has statistical proof showing where most guns in crimes against various groups comes from.
So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"
Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.
These guns are from somewhere.
In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.
Chicago. One of highest incidence rates of teenage shooting victims in the country. They have extremely strict gun laws in Chicago making virtually impossible for residents to legally own and carry pistols. Illinois only just recently, this year IIRC, passed their law allowing concealed carry. A large majority of the teens shot in Chicago are shot by pistols. They are not getting those pistols from family members leaving them sitting g around the house because it's still extremely difficult for residents to legally own pistols. All of the gang violence in Chicago is not perpetrated with pistols improperly secured in the home.
I think the majority of the males in that demographic being murdered are either gang or drug related.
The data I provided supports that.
It also shows that nearly 30% of the homicides comitted by those under 18 are gang related. We can't compare the numbers to the CDC chart because one lumps 18 years olds with up to 24 year olds where the other lumps them with 25 year olds.
My "intuition" tells me you assumption that the large number of these are being committed because a parent didn't secure their firearm is wrong.
Prestor Jon wrote: State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.
Yes, you figured out the key difference here: a limited-scope search (FAA inspection) is legal, a general "let's see if we can find anything" search (checking the plane for drugs) is not. Based on that precedent a limited-scope "are your guns stored legally" search would be legal, a general "you're a gun owner so we can look at anything we want" search would not. Inspecting your gun safe does not give the police permission to search the rest of your house for drugs, check your computer for evidence, etc, so your fourth amendment rights are intact.
There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.
That is a problem that can be fixed. In fact, putting guns under federal control and removing the state-to-state differences would be a good thing.
No you are still managing to ignore the key difference and the only one that counts. The FAA inspections have already been consented to as a condition for obtaining a federal license. Once consent is given agents can conduct the search.
Gun storage laws are no different than any other laws. Police don't have the right to search for violations without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. There is no such thing as a legal targeted search for violations of laws that doesn't require probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
There are copyright laws. The fact that those laws exist doesnt make it legal for police to search somebody's hard drive for illegal downloads that violate copyright laws. The police can't search your hard drive in a limited targeted manner for specific copyright law violations without establishing probable cause exists for finding those violations. Gun storage laws aren't special laws that don't qualify for 4th amendment protection just because. We literally have centuries of case law explaining this.
Gun laws aren't a matter of federal law they are a state and local matter. That's covered by the 10th amendment. Federal gun laws are limited to federal firearm licenses and interstate commerce of firearms.
No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.
They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.
It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.
Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.
And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storahuge laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?
Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.
Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.
In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.
683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.
If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.
Here's another statistical number.
2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.
That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.
So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.
What about alcohol then, if you are worried about order of magnitude with things that cause death and where we put our efforts? According to the CDC, 83,000 + people die per year due to alcohol related causes. Tack on to that, two out of three domestic abuse cases involve alcohol, or the amount of health problems caused, homes broken, jobs lost, work hours lost, etc. Compared to alcohol, guns is a small potatoes issue.
