Shortly after the shooting began in the town of about 13,000 residents, a man carrying an American flag, wearing a Trump hat, and carrying a pistol on his hip approached news cameras.
The man, who did not give his name, said his goal was to "get to the school. Make America great again."
Another man then told reporters "we need prayers".
"This idiot is walking down the street with a damned pistol on his side where we just had kids get shot," he said referring to the other man.
"I'm a guns rights person. I have guns. But this idiot is walking down here and saying he needs to make America great again. That's not what America needs."
I don't even have anything to say about these events anymore. They see like they are occurring daily now. Its like, ok, well what else is going on in the news.
I do not think this culture has in itself the will to change and keep these things from happening. At least not for some time.
Retain your outrage. Don't become inured to it. Keep shouting. The NRA and other gun lobbies can only offer 'hopes and prayers' before they lose all face and influence.
I'm not going on about gun ownership - just the organised charlatans who try to hand wave away yet another school massacre.
Time and again America has decided it is prepared to pay this price for having guns. Now watch as the politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, while banking their NRA donations. It's gak.
Crispy78 wrote: Time and again America has decided it is prepared to pay this price for having guns. Now watch as the politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, while banking their NRA donations. It's gak.
Again bombs are illegal and we do not know how he obtained the firearms yet.
Retain your outrage. Don't become inured to it. Keep shouting. The NRA and other gun lobbies can only offer 'hopes and prayers' before they lose all face and influence.
I'm not going on about gun ownership - just the organised charlatans who try to hand wave away yet another school massacre.
I don't really blame guns for this, honestly. The vast majority of Americans who own guns never shoot anyone. I do not blame them nor the NRA for this. If we didn't have such easy access to guns, we'd be seeing more bomb attacks.
I am not going to even read up on what this guy's problem was. Assuming it was a guy.
Oh wow! Last time I started a thread about a mass shooter, the thread got closed. Good luck!
Me, I have, well a few. Judging by history. Chances of me being shot in California-high. Chanes here-low. Chances of my sofa being shot? High, as a warning to the other furniture.
As an aside why do women never clean their own guns?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet you have a very high rate of gun crime - higher than other countries with similar gun laws.
Me, I can’t get a gun. Chances of me being shot. Virtually nil.
Which means that the guns are not the damned problem. But the real issues are easy to just push to the side, since they will be too difficult to solve, don't sustain the 24 hour news cycle, and can't be used by leftist politicians to score re-election points in their home districts.
And you can get a gun in the UK. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a firearms license (not counting all the illegal guns floating around in Britain).
But keep slamming the NRA, which while not perfect, has been at the forefront of defending our Second Amendment rights.
I think this has more to do with a growing mental health problem, not necessarily being that guns are bad. People will use events like this to push their own agendas. At the end of the day if you have a crazy person (they're everywhere) with the will to harm others this individual will find a way to do so, with or without guns. It is easier to buy a gun than it is to cobble together bombs though.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yet you have a very high rate of gun crime - higher than other countries with similar gun laws.
Me, I can’t get a gun. Chances of me being shot. Virtually nil.
the bigger issue is that America has a high violence rate in general. If you exclude every firearm related homicide from the metrics, the US still has a higher per capita murder rate than France even including all French firearms fatalities. Firearms could be explained as an exacerbation, but not the core of the issue.
But keep slamming the NRA, which while not perfect, has been at the forefront of defending our Second Amendment rights.
I personally will happily slam the NRA personally. Looking at them today, their programs and rhetoric are painfully Goebellian (particularly Loesch and LaPierre), and even on gun topics they appear far more interested in being a wing of the GOP and keeping their fundraising apparatus than advancing the 2A as a civil rights issue, their silence on matters like the Castile shooting, the NFA repeal petition that got hundreds of thousands of signatures on the WH site, etc makes it hard to square a lot of their rhetoric.
UPDATE: A second person in custody is 18 years old and is believed to be a possible accomplice to the suspect in the Texas shooting, but not the shooter, according to a law enforcement official, reports @evanperez
I personally will happily slam the NRA personally. Looking at them today, their programs and rhetoric are painfully Goebellian (particularly Loesch and LaPierre), and even on gun topics they appear far more interested in being a wing of the GOP and keeping their fundraising apparatus than advancing the 2A as a civil rights issue, their silence on matters like the Castile shooting, the NFA repeal petition that got hundreds of thousands of signatures on the WH site, etc makes it hard to square a lot of their rhetoric.
They didn't say. Also, they detained a second suspect. Would make sense, kinda hard to hide bombs around the property while carrying a shotgun on the down-low.
Interesting, the shooter apparently did the "long coat" thing in 90* weather, packing a shotgun and .38 revolver under there. Supposedly posted pictures of a "born to kill" shirt and a "duster" (the long coat) with all sorts of ridiculous symbols attached to it with goofy explanations
I personally will happily slam the NRA personally. Looking at them today, their programs and rhetoric are painfully Goebellian (particularly Loesch and LaPierre), and even on gun topics they appear far more interested in being a wing of the GOP and keeping their fundraising apparatus than advancing the 2A as a civil rights issue, their silence on matters like the Castile shooting, the NFA repeal petition that got hundreds of thousands of signatures on the WH site, etc makes it hard to square a lot of their rhetoric.
We are actually in agreement there.
Same. I own what, like 8 guns? and have nothing for contempt for the NRA. I wish they would return to simply being advocates for gun safety and education instead of what they're doing now, and that's before we get into the fact they literally picked Oliver North as their president, which I would have deemed too ridiculous to even throw out there as a joke previous to it happening.
"The suspect from the Santa Fe ISD shooting scene has been booked into the Galveston County Jail. He is identified as Dimitrios Pagourtzis. Being held for Capital Murder; no bond."
The problem is if you get rid of all the excess doors schools have and pitch them into the sea, you're just going to raise sea levels. Truly we can't win.
Ouze wrote: The problem is if you get rid of all the excess doors schools have and pitch them into the sea, you're just going to raise sea levels. Truly we can't win.
Not to mention you'd violate all sorts of safety regulations - large buildings need to have a certain amount of emergency exits in case of fires etc.
And ofc, only one way in means only one way out. Why would a shooter walk into the building at all if he can wait in a van outside, knowing everyone has to come out that way?
..sure show those libs by.. dying in a raging inferno .. ?
Fire codes are for the weak, burning is gods own etc etc yadda yadda.
Reassuring to know though that restrictive bottlenecks -- the cure for so many deadly scenarios -- are going to come back in fashion at last !
Apparently Gov Abott says 2 weapons were used: a shotgun and .38 revolver.
" Father legally owned weapons, unclear if father knew they were taken by son."
... gonna go out on a limb and assume -- or hope at least -- that the father didn't know his son had, you know, taken his guns to school to kill loads of people.
Easy E wrote: The doors thing is just stupid for so many reasons I shouldn't even have to explain why, but I am sure we will.
In your defense if you knew the politician making the statement, you would not be surprised. This is the guy who tried to have a special session of the state legislature to implement one of those restroom ban things as a great pressing need to be dealt with for the state, and was concerned about Jade Helm being a thing.
Another month, another appalling shooting. Is this going to be another white, men’s rights slob that has crawled out of mum’s basement to take revenge upon the whole world that has wronged him?
I personally will happily slam the NRA personally. Looking at them today, their programs and rhetoric are painfully Goebellian (particularly Loesch and LaPierre), and even on gun topics they appear far more interested in being a wing of the GOP and keeping their fundraising apparatus than advancing the 2A as a civil rights issue, their silence on matters like the Castile shooting, the NFA repeal petition that got hundreds of thousands of signatures on the WH site, etc makes it hard to square a lot of their rhetoric.
We are actually in agreement there.
Same. I own what, like 8 guns? and have nothing for contempt for the NRA. I wish they would return to simply being advocates for gun safety and education instead of what they're doing now, and that's before we get into the fact they literally picked Oliver North as their president, which I would have deemed too ridiculous to even throw out there as a joke previous to it happening.
Well I mean it isn't every day that a major GOP fundraising organization hires on a man who committed treason for a president who also happened to be a republican
Heavy.com said he had some iconography on a trench coat he would wear every day. They posted an image of a post where he explains the significance of these symbols. One of them is Cthulhu and he equates it to power...so, he appears to be delusional as well?
This appears to just be acts where shooting occurred on the school grounds including elementary, HS, and post-secondary, so it is not just the usual things you assocaite in your head with school shootings.
Our suicide rate among males has been steadily climbing for decades.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml#part_154969 We have an unhealthy society and it’s made worse by the level of notoriety and infamy that is granted to murder suicides. This is a problem throughout Western society, Australia was recently shocked by a murder suicide of an entire family. Here in the US we have more people, more guns, more drugs and contributing cultural differences that exacerbate the problem.
Ustrello wrote: Also this took place in Texas one of the most gun friendly states in the union, where was that good guy with a gun to stop it?
Good guys tend to not take their guns into “gun free zones” because they, like 99.9% of gun owners, obey the law.
Basic mass shooter MO is to do it in places where good guys won’t be carrying their guns to intervene.
Well one did show up open carrying a pistol on the grounds of the high school where a mass shooting had occurred hours earlier
Yes, after the fact, just like police. The “where was the good guy with a gun to stop this haw haw gotcha!” type comments don’t really work when you’re talking about a place that doesn’t allow the good guys to carry a gun.
Ustrello wrote: Also this took place in Texas one of the most gun friendly states in the union, where was that good guy with a gun to stop it?
Good guys tend to not take their guns into “gun free zones” because they, like 99.9% of gun owners, obey the law.
Basic mass shooter MO is to do it in places where good guys won’t be carrying their guns to intervene.
Well one did show up open carrying a pistol on the grounds of the high school where a mass shooting had occurred hours earlier
Yes, after the fact, just like police. The “where was the good guy with a gun to stop this haw haw gotcha!” type comments don’t really work when you’re talking about a place that doesn’t allow the good guys to carry a gun.
The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
TBH I'm surprised they took the shooter(s) alive. They usually kill themselves rather than face justice. Maybe that means that they intend to spread more hateful rhetoric at their trial or something, like some kind of dumbass martyrdom thing.
We consistently see that in these shootings the murderers don’t stop until they are confronted with an armed response typically police that results in their suicide, death or apprehension. The longer the response takes to arrive the higher the death toll which is why after Columbine police departments changed their response protocol to be that the officers that arrive first proceed directly to confront the shooter and stop the carnage.
Well looking at the laws in texas you are kinda wrong there
IF you have a CHL, and IF you are -concealed- carrying, and IF you have written authorization from the school (You aren't getting this.)...Yes. Just because you can carry at community colleges and universities doesn't necessarily apply to K-12, and even when it does open carry is still off the table.
Nostromodamus wrote:The “where was the good guy with a gun to stop this haw haw gotcha!” type comments don’t really work when you’re talking about a place that doesn’t allow the good guys to carry a gun.
There's no evidence even a single mass shooting has had it's venue selected on the basis of being a gun-free zone or not. People shoot up places they have a connection to; and the last 3 major mass shootings have all occurred in states with the some of the loosest gun laws in the country.
Gun free zones clearly do little to discourage mass shootings, but neither do they attract them, I don't think.
Best I can tell about 150-170 districts in Texas allow teachers to concealed carry with certain restrictions. This is out of about 1300 districts so it's a distinct minority. It's not always illegal but it's definitely uncommon.
ZergSmasher wrote: The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
Crispy78 wrote: None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
Besides, what with War on Terror and the intelligence operations spawned by it someone buying up materials for building bombs (and checking manuals on the net) is pretty likely to get caught before he's ready. Or even more likely to be contacted by the FBI who let some undercover agent help and egg the suspect on so they can arrest him for terrorism instead of preparing a violent crime...
tneva82 wrote: Why even report this as news? Americans decided they want these over alternatives so it's not even newsworthy.
Agreed. Mass shootings / gun related murder is as American as Baseball and Apple Pie.
This may be news if it happened in another country where it was out of the ordinary because people banned / tightly regulated guns. But it happened in America, where everyone is packing and has been indoctrinated to support a piece of paper scribbled down over two hundred years ago (Totally relevant... not)
The fact people are defending the notion to carry weapons and play John Wayne in the supermarket, and balking at the idea of the NRA being the bad guy says all we need to know really.
Crispy78 wrote: None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
Besides, what with War on Terror and the intelligence operations spawned by it someone buying up materials for building bombs (and checking manuals on the net) is pretty likely to get caught before he's ready. Or even more likely to be contacted by the FBI who let some undercover agent help and egg the suspect on so they can arrest him for terrorism instead of preparing a violent crime...
Guns is much easier.
Thats not really true. Bomb making materials, as well as stuff for making chemical bombs and poisons, can be bought over the counter almost literally everywhere. Sure, if you buy 1000 gallons of ammonia all at once you might attract attention, but if you buy 2-3 gallons at one store, then go the next one, etc... you'll never get found out till you do something with it. Even countries with strict gun laws still allow easy access to the household chemicals that you can use to make some really nasty bombs. And unlike a shooting where the perpetrator can be found quickly, even a sloppy bomber can go weeks if not months before he gets caught. You don't even need to google "How to make a bomb". Some basic high school level chemistry will tell you all you need to know.
The real issue here is why this kid felt the need to go shoot up his school/plant bombs. Not that he had access to the tools.
Thats not really true. Bomb making materials, as well as stuff for making chemical bombs and poisons, can be bought over the counter almost literally everywhere. Sure, if you buy 1000 gallons of ammonia all at once you might attract attention, but if you buy 2-3 gallons at one store, then go the next one, etc... you'll never get found out till you do something with it. Even countries with strict gun laws still allow easy access to the household chemicals that you can use to make some really nasty bombs..
In which it's argued, presumably with a straight face, that spending thousands of dollars making hundreds of trips to various stores is easier than for example buying a $400 AR15 at a gun show.
Don't forget all that ammonia needs to be converted to ammonium nitrate, by the way. And also once all that's done, you're only halfway there.
If it was really easier, there would be bombings in this country almost every day, doesn't that reason?
I was not referring to an ammonium nitrate bomb. I was being vague and left out some other ingredients. Best not to get into specifics about making a bomb on the internet.
Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Nope! You don't get to play that card right now. You cannot prove, definitively, that the shooter did not have access to the firearms through his father's neglect or just having given the shooter access to them thinking the shooter "knew better" than to do something like this.
Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Nope! You don't get to play that card right now. You cannot prove, definitively, that the shooter did not have access to the firearms through his father's neglect or just having given the shooter access to them thinking the shooter "knew better" than to do something like this.
Having possession of someone else’s guns without their explicit permission is the definition of a stolen gun.
Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Nope! You don't get to play that card right now. You cannot prove, definitively, that the shooter did not have access to the firearms through his father's neglect or just having given the shooter access to them thinking the shooter "knew better" than to do something like this.
Having possession of someone else’s guns without their explicit permission is the definition of a stolen gun.
So when someone in my family uses my car, without my explicit permission, but has access to it and used it--is that fitting "the definition of a stolen car"?
You don't get to play this garbage. The gun might be "stolen" in that the shooter had it without explicit permission, but if the shooter was given access to it by the father--you don't get to use the term "stolen gun". He had access to it, he used it. End of story. "Stolen gun" is an attempt to shift blame for someone who legally could not purchase a firearm to have obtained one without needing to use illegal methods to purchase one.
Until we have evidence that the dad gave permission for the kid to use the guns, they are stolen guns. The base assumption is always that you can’t use someone else’s property without permission.
And yes, if you don’t give a family member explicit permission to use a car and later the cops pull them over and can’t get ahold of you to confirm they have permission to have your car they could be arrested for car theft.
Grey Templar wrote: Sure, if you buy 1000 gallons of ammonia all at once you might attract attention, but if you buy 2-3 gallons at one store, then go the next one, etc... you'll never get found out till you do something with it..
Santa Fe is a city in Galveston County, Texas, United States. It is named for the Santa Fe Railroad which runs through the town alongside State Highway 6. The population of Santa Fe at the 2010 census was 12,222.
Sure no one there whatsoever will notice one 17 year old buying 1000 gallons of ammonia.
" my hobby is cleaning bathrooms "
Perhaps we could turn this into a modern remake /remix of that old Johnny Cash song about building a Cadillac.
No you said he'd get away with it if he did the buying in multiple places.
Something that seems unlikely for a 17 year old with no significant income in a place that consists of
12,222 people and 4,564 households residing in the city.
There were 4,583 households out of which 36.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 57.7% were married couples, 12.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 23.7% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 19.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.67 and the average family size was 3.03.
..
this gets more like that Chris Rock sketch about bullet control by the moment.
Really, using pipe bombs on a 'rampage' is stupid, IEDs are pretty bad at killing people compared to guns. If you were willing to go in and shoot people anyways, bringing pipe bombs is largely unnecessary.
Grey Templar wrote: Until we have evidence that the dad gave permission for the kid to use the guns, they are stolen guns. The base assumption is always that you can’t use someone else’s property without permission.
And the base assumption is always that people have access to someone else's property when they live in the same home and that when the firearms have been claimed to be for home defense, they tend to be secured improperly.
And yes, if you don’t give a family member explicit permission to use a car and later the cops pull them over and can’t get ahold of you to confirm they have permission to have your car they could be arrested for car theft.
This isn't even remotely true. It requires a specific set of circumstances for a cop to even think to try to confirm that a family member doesn't actually have permission to use your car.
tneva82 wrote: Why even report this as news? Americans decided they want these over alternatives so it's not even newsworthy.
Agreed. Mass shootings / gun related murder is as American as Baseball and Apple Pie.
This may be news if it happened in another country where it was out of the ordinary because people banned / tightly regulated guns. But it happened in America, where everyone is packing and has been indoctrinated to support a piece of paper scribbled down over two hundred years ago (Totally relevant... not)
The fact people are defending the notion to carry weapons and play John Wayne in the supermarket, and balking at the idea of the NRA being the bad guy says all we need to know really.
I agree with that.
However it should also be noted that this is a social issue with an increasingly pronounced old/young-rural/urban-white/black-conservative/progressive-lots/none divide.
The demographics of the situation are moving more and more towards the gun control side of the argument.
Every massacre pushes things a bit further.
I think the NRA should be far less enthusiastic about pushing their "All Assault Guns, All The Time" agenda. There is a risk that the gathering reaction will go too far in the opposite direction when the dam finally overflows.
reds8n wrote: No you said he'd get away with it if he did the buying in multiple places.
Something that seems unlikely for a 17 year old with no significant income in a place that consists of
12,222 people and 4,564 households residing in the city.
There were 4,583 households out of which 36.8% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 57.7% were married couples, 12.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 23.7% were non-families. 27.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 19.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.67 and the average family size was 3.03.
..
this gets more like that Chris Rock sketch about bullet control by the moment.
By my count there are 19 hardware stores in Santa Fe. Assuming we need that thousand gallon number given, I'd have to think that the very first trip to Home Depot with a cart of 52 gallons of ammonia would result in a visit by the local constabulary to ask how that meth trailer or whatever is working out.
Grey Templar wrote: I was not referring to an ammonium nitrate bomb. I was being vague and left out some other ingredients. Best not to get into specifics about making a bomb on the internet.
Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
See, you did a thing here you do sometimes and this is - I say this with no malice and all sincerity - this is an opportunity to grow. Specifically, you said something not super well thought out, which we all do. However, you're now doubling down on it, and dying on this hill which you made. It's not a good hill!
1.) You can't say it's easier to make a bomb with ammonia, admit you need an enormous amount, and then slink off with avoiding specifics. I doubt you're going to find any argument we shouldn't post bomb recipes on Dakka Dakka, but I also think maybe you didn't know that ammonia needed to be converted to ammonium nitrate and that's not simple for a amateur to do, or that even when that's done you still need other now-difficult stuff to acquire. So I feel like you're kind of handwaving it away disingenuously a bit. But that's not really important for the other reasons, anyway.
2.) You're ignoring the point that if explosives actually were trivial to acquire and manufacture then you'd see a lot more people get blown up then shot in the US. You manifestly do not. I suspect the number of shooting homicides vs homicides by IEDs or other explosives in the US is at least 10,0000 to 1 in favor of guns.
3.) You're also ignoring that in this specific shooting that we are talking about right now, the killer used firearms and tried to use a variety of explosives. His explosives were either inert or he wasn't able to deploy them successfully. I mean, this is a dude who went for it and clearly found guns to be substantially easier to acquire and use, right ?
I will agree that you can definitely make some simple, crude explosives fairly simply - I mean, you can buy tannerite over the counter with no records in some places.
However, I think your assertion that assembling and using the quality and quantity of explosives for a mass killing is easier than just getting a firearm - in a country with like, 300 million guns - is wrong.
Thats not really true. Bomb making materials, as well as stuff for making chemical bombs and poisons, can be bought over the counter almost literally everywhere. Sure, if you buy 1000 gallons of ammonia all at once you might attract attention, but if you buy 2-3 gallons at one store, then go the next one, etc... you'll never get found out till you do something with it. Even countries with strict gun laws still allow easy access to the household chemicals that you can use to make some really nasty bombs..
In which it's argued, presumably with a straight face, that spending thousands of dollars making hundreds of trips to various stores is easier than for example buying a $400 AR15 at a gun show.
Don't forget all that ammonia needs to be converted to ammonium nitrate, by the way. And also once all that's done, you're only halfway there.
If it was really easier, there would be bombings in this country almost every day, doesn't that reason?
There was a time when bombings were commonplace in the US. The bombings didn’t stop because we passed a bevy of new laws that made it impossible to build bombs they stopped happening because society evolved and people stopped wanting to commit bombings. The politics of the Weather Underground didn’t change but the methodology did.
We need to work towards fixing society so we stop producing people who want to commit mass murder in the first place.
In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance. The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.
Crispy78 wrote: None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
Besides, what with War on Terror and the intelligence operations spawned by it someone buying up materials for building bombs (and checking manuals on the net) is pretty likely to get caught before he's ready. Or even more likely to be contacted by the FBI who let some undercover agent help and egg the suspect on so they can arrest him for terrorism instead of preparing a violent crime...
Guns is much easier.
Thats not really true. Bomb making materials, as well as stuff for making chemical bombs and poisons, can be bought over the counter almost literally everywhere. Sure, if you buy 1000 gallons of ammonia all at once you might attract attention, but if you buy 2-3 gallons at one store, then go the next one, etc... you'll never get found out till you do something with it. Even countries with strict gun laws still allow easy access to the household chemicals that you can use to make some really nasty bombs. And unlike a shooting where the perpetrator can be found quickly, even a sloppy bomber can go weeks if not months before he gets caught. You don't even need to google "How to make a bomb". Some basic high school level chemistry will tell you all you need to know.
The real issue here is why this kid felt the need to go shoot up his school/plant bombs. Not that he had access to the tools.
See, people you say "they'll just do something else!", but I must have missed the regular bombing campaigns and mass-stabbings conducted by mentally ill people elsewhere in the world where they can't get guns & ammo at the local supermarket. There have been bombings and mass-stabbings before, certainly, but they're not an occurrence with "oh, must be Friday again" regularity. And all this "oh well he used bombs so gun control is pointless" stuff would sound a lot less insincere and opportunistic if it was even remotely a regular part of the ongoing epidemic of mass-shootings, rather than an oddity.
You can "mental health, just do something else anyway, thoughts & prayers what a tragedy couldn't be helped, guns don't kill people people kill people" forever if you like, but no matter how much you use stereotypes to dump your problems on the mentally ill(who are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of crime of all sorts than perpetrators of it) you're not going to fix anything like that.
I mean, surely if this whole thing was actually a "mental health problem not a gun problem", all the perpetrators of these massacres would be making successful insanity pleas and going to mental health facilities rather than prisons, right?
Ouze wrote: [.) You're ignoring the point that if explosives actually were trivial to acquire and manufacture then you'd see a lot more people get blown up then shot in the US. You manifestly do not. I suspect the number of shooting homicides vs homicides by IEDs or other explosives in the US is at least 10,0000 to 1 in favor of guns.
You're kind of right. Over the last 50 years it's more like a 200 to 1 ratio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: [no matter how much you use stereotypes to dump your problems on the mentally ill(who are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of crime of all sorts than perpetrators of it) you're not going to fix anything like that.
I mean, surely if this whole thing was actually a "mental health problem not a gun problem", all the perpetrators of these massacres would be making successful insanity pleas and going to mental health facilities rather than prisons, right?
That's a bit of a red herring/strawman. Yes, you are correct. Mentally ill people are more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. That's horrible and a huge problem, but it's a whole separate issue. The thing being noted is whether or not mentally ill people are more likely than the non mentally ill to be a perpetrator of violence.
ZergSmasher wrote: The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
The Oklahoma City bombing victims beg to differ. Bomb attacks can be even more devastating than shootings, potentially. Granted, it would be harder to stockpile materials and such to make such a bomb now without getting caught, but still...
ZergSmasher wrote: The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
None of the other methods you've mentioned are as effective as guns. The Boston Marathon bombs, which went off in crowded streets, injured many but only actually killed 3 people. Compared to Santa Fe, or Parkland, or the concert in Vegas, that doesn't seem so bad.
The Oklahoma City bombing victims beg to differ. Bomb attacks can be even more devastating than shootings, potentially. Granted, it would be harder to stockpile materials and such to make such a bomb now without getting caught, but still...
And the largest number of school victims in any school attack in American was done with a bomb, back in 1927 I think. 1927 You know, when you could buy an actual machine gun at a hardware store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
John Prins wrote: Really, using pipe bombs on a 'rampage' is stupid, IEDs are pretty bad at killing people compared to guns. If you were willing to go in and shoot people anyways, bringing pipe bombs is largely unnecessary.
I have a fair number of veteran friends who would disagree with that statement. That IEDs are bad at killing people compared to small arms.
Ouze wrote: If it was really easier, there would be bombings in this country almost every day, doesn't that reason?
There was a time when bombings were commonplace in the US. The bombings didn’t stop because we passed a bevy of new laws that made it impossible to build bombs they stopped happening because society evolved and people stopped wanting to commit bombings. The politics of the Weather Underground didn’t change but the methodology did.
We need to work towards fixing society so we stop producing people who want to commit mass murder in the first place.
In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance. The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.
First, thanks for posting that. I knew the Weatherman had conducting bombings, but I had no idea there were so many.
That being said, the Weathermen mostly seemed to have used dynamite. in 1970, you could walk into a hardware store and buy dynamite. In 1971, dynamite became regulated under the ATF. I'm not sure that I buy that people became a lot more peaceful instead of dynamite becoming significantly harder to get over the next few years. I suppose it could be a little of both, as the war in Vietnam wound down and removed a lot of the reason some of the extremist groups existed.
So... this is kinda sorta on topic in this thread.
I was talking to my old High School buddy about this school shooting (and violence in general) and he said something to the effect that:
Hey... do you remember when we were High School freshmans, that just about every month, we'd hear about other St. Louis HS schools having shooting/stabbing/drug/gangs near monthly?
My HS years are '91-95.
He's right... I do recall that. Not to the level of "mass shooting" ala Santa Fe/Parkland, but kid were brandishing pistols... attacks with knives, brass knuckles and chains.
Then... guess what happened the next year? Yup, St. Louis public schools secured the doors and added security checkpoints (metal detectors) with armed personells (PD and security peeps)... and things like that plummeted. They wouldn't let me keep my chain wallet tho.... :(
Spoiler:
I'm trying to remember the last time a shooting occurred on school grounds in St. Louis. (I've even googled for articles... and not seeing any other than events near schools).
I guess my point is this: has anyone noticed this? I guess... I'm still surprised that there are schools who are not "hardened" from mass shooting....
whembly wrote: So... this is kinda sorta on topic in this thread.
I was talking to my old High School buddy about this school shooting (and violence in general) and he said something to the effect that:
Hey... do you remember when we were High School freshmans, that just about every month, we'd hear about other St. Louis HS schools having shooting/stabbing/drug/gangs near monthly?
My HS years are '91-95.
He's right... I do recall that. Not to the level of "mass shooting" ala Santa Fe/Parkland, but kid were brandishing pistols... attacks with knives, brass knuckles and chains.
Then... guess what happened the next year? Yup, St. Louis public schools secured the doors and added security checkpoints (metal detectors) with armed personells (PD and security peeps)... and things like that plummeted. They wouldn't let me keep my chain wallet tho.... :(
Spoiler:
I'm trying to remember the last time a shooting occurred on school grounds in St. Louis. (I've even googled for articles... and not seeing any other than events near schools).
I guess my point is this: has anyone noticed this? I guess... I'm still surprised that there are schools who are not "hardened" from mass shooting....
My guess would be that "hardening" in the same manner would not be as effective because the nature of the acts are different. The stuff referred to from the early 90's and whatnot largely seems to be small concealable stuff being pulled out in relatively spontaneous interpersonal conflicts or targeted gang attacks, the kind of stuff that can be relatively easily controlled by actively keeping weapons out through checkpoints and the like. It's an altogether different issue when someone shows up equipped and intending to engage in a general attack on the facility, much like the Pulse nightclub, I'd imagine they'd attack security first and waltz on through, and may then be able to work with constrained entry/exit points.
Also, there's lots of schools that just cannot be "hardened" in such a manner. Thinking back to my high school, it's a large campus with dozens of buildings built more along the lines of a university, and a largely open layout, just about every high school in southern California is built like that. They had/have gates to keep people out of the central concourse/quads, but there were like 8 or 10 of those and they wouldn't stop someone from getting into half the buildings on campus (which are either unlocked during school hours and through which they could then get into the central concourse, or are expansion trailer classrooms), those gates are basically to keep bored people out after dark.
So apparently one of the guns belonged to his mother. But his mother is a convicted felon and prohibited from owning firearms, so the gun was illegally owned in the first place even before he took it.
So yeah, additional laws aren't going to solve anything here.
Grey Templar wrote: So apparently one of the guns belonged to his mother. But his mother is a convicted felon and prohibited from owning firearms, so the gun was illegally owned in the first place even before he took it.
So yeah, additional laws aren't going to solve anything here.
Prestor Jon wrote: We have an unhealthy society and it’s made worse by the level of notoriety and infamy that is granted to murder suicides. This is a problem throughout Western society, Australia was recently shocked by a murder suicide of an entire family. Here in the US we have more people, more guns, more drugs and contributing cultural differences that exacerbate the problem.
As with everything, bad things can happen anywhere but it's a question of how frequently. The recent murder suicide here in Australia was horrible, but it was the worse incident in Australia in 32 years. The US is clearly unique with the frequency with which these things happen. Here's the list of school shootings in different countries from 2000 until now. One of these is not like the others.
And people try to argue that other factors drive this, but in all those other areas the US simply isn't that unique. Yes, mental health in the US is bad, but its bad everywhere. The US has entirely normal rates of property and violent crimes, except murder, where the US is off the chart. The reason is that the US is unique in its gun culture, which then plays a unique role in exacerbating all the other problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZergSmasher wrote: The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
When people can freely purchase a gun and begin shooting, there is almost no points of failure between committing to the massacre and carrying out the massacre. When the person has to engage in the black market, assemble bombs etc, there adds a whole lot of points of failure, both technical and legal, which can prevent the attempt. Which means more people are likely to fail or get caught, and more importantly a lot more people are likely to not begin the spiral in to the massacre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Which pretty obviously is a thing that doesn't happen in a place where the Dad doesn't have guns. The obstinate denialism of the role of guns in shootings will never cease to amaze me.
You can be pro-gun all you want, but denying the extremely obvious effect of gun proliferation is just choosing to be wrong. I mean, I love pizza, but I don't pretend it is good for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: There was a time when bombings were commonplace in the US. The bombings didn’t stop because we passed a bevy of new laws that made it impossible to build bombs they stopped happening because society evolved and people stopped wanting to commit bombings. The politics of the Weather Underground didn’t change but the methodology did.
It is true that methodology has changed. In the fairly abstract political causes of the 1970s bombs set off in public buildings at night were better suited, while in the personal rage attacks of today are better suited with firearms. However, you're wrong that bomb making is just as practical today. Regulation plays just as important a role as legislation, and there has been a tremendous amount of additional regulation placed on the sale and purchase of explosives.
And of course, the bigger issue is how much the personal rage attacks are not just facilitated by the presence of the gun, but actually trigger it in the first place.
Prestor Jon wrote: We have an unhealthy society and it’s made worse by the level of notoriety and infamy that is granted to murder suicides. This is a problem throughout Western society, Australia was recently shocked by a murder suicide of an entire family. Here in the US we have more people, more guns, more drugs and contributing cultural differences that exacerbate the problem.
As with everything, bad things can happen anywhere but it's a question of how frequently. The recent murder suicide here in Australia was horrible, but it was the worse incident in Australia in 32 years. The US is clearly unique with the frequency with which these things happen. Here's the list of school shootings in different countries from 2000 until now. One of these is not like the others.
And people try to argue that other factors drive this, but in all those other areas the US simply isn't that unique. Yes, mental health in the US is bad, but its bad everywhere. The US has entirely normal rates of property and violent crimes, except murder, where the US is off the chart. The reason is that the US is unique in its gun culture, which then plays a unique role in exacerbating all the other problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZergSmasher wrote: The fact that they found bombs as well as guns should be eye-opening for all the anti-gun people. If we take away all the guns, criminals who can't get them on the black market will start using bombs, knives, clubs, cars and trucks, or even their bare hands to kill people. It's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
When people can freely purchase a gun and begin shooting, there is almost no points of failure between committing to the massacre and carrying out the massacre. When the person has to engage in the black market, assemble bombs etc, there adds a whole lot of points of failure, both technical and legal, which can prevent the attempt. Which means more people are likely to fail or get caught, and more importantly a lot more people are likely to not begin the spiral in to the massacre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Besides, how easy it is or isn’t to buy a gun isn’t relevant since the guns were stolen from his dad.
Which pretty obviously is a thing that doesn't happen in a place where the Dad doesn't have guns. The obstinate denialism of the role of guns in shootings will never cease to amaze me.
You can be pro-gun all you want, but denying the extremely obvious effect of gun proliferation is just choosing to be wrong. I mean, I love pizza, but I don't pretend it is good for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: There was a time when bombings were commonplace in the US. The bombings didn’t stop because we passed a bevy of new laws that made it impossible to build bombs they stopped happening because society evolved and people stopped wanting to commit bombings. The politics of the Weather Underground didn’t change but the methodology did.
It is true that methodology has changed. In the fairly abstract political causes of the 1970s bombs set off in public buildings at night were better suited, while in the personal rage attacks of today are better suited with firearms. However, you're wrong that bomb making is just as practical today. Regulation plays just as important a role as legislation, and there has been a tremendous amount of additional regulation placed on the sale and purchase of explosives.
And of course, the bigger issue is how much the personal rage attacks are not just facilitated by the presence of the gun, but actually trigger it in the first place.
The firearm is the trigger? Wow, that fork must have made you fat.
We have a high crime rate in the US. Even factoring out firearms related muders from the US and leavings firearm related deaths in the rest of Europe we still lead by a huge factor.
But continue to blame the gun. Not our culture.
Your school shooting number is artificially inflated by including non- firearms related incidents, Our press has an anti gun agenda, or at least the if it bleeds it leads fixation.
I put bomb denial right up there with global weather change denial. Lucky for us the press has not sensationalized bombers over the last two decades except in a few cases but the number of cases that don't make it to national news is higher than you could imagine.
Not sure I did this right. If I did what do you all think. Keep in mind this guy is an NRA spokesman.
What point are you trying to make? Are you disputing the validity of the contagion effect? It's widely accepted that suicide contagion effect is real and that's why it's reportedly differently now so why shouldn't we treat mass shootings in a similar manner?
ASPECTS OF NEWS COVERAGE THAT CAN PROMOTE SUICIDE CONTAGION
Clinicians, researchers, and other health professionals at the workshop agreed that to minimize the likelihood of suicide contagion, reporting should be concise and factual. Although scientific research in this area is not complete, workshop participants believed that the likelihood of suicide contagion may be increased by the following actions:
Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide.
Suicide is never the result of a single factor or event, but rather results from a complex interaction of many factors and usually involves a history of psychosocial problems (12). Public officials and the media should carefully explain that the final precipitating event was not the only cause of a given suicide. Most persons who have committed suicide have had a history of problems that may not have been acknowledged during the acute aftermath of the suicide. Cataloguing the problems that could have played a causative role in a suicide is not necessary, but acknowledgment of these problems is recommended.
Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news.
Repetitive and ongoing coverage, or prominent coverage, of a suicide tends to promote and maintain a preoccupation with suicide among at-risk persons, especially among persons 15-24 years of age. This preoccupation appears to be associated with suicide contagion. Information presented to the media should include the association between such coverage and the potential for suicide contagion. Public officials and media representatives should discuss alternative approaches for coverage of newsworthy suicide stories.
Providing sensational coverage of suicide.
By its nature, news coverage of a suicidal event tends to heighten the general public's preoccupation with suicide. This reaction is also believed to be associated with contagion and the development of suicide clusters. Public officials can help minimize sensationalism by limiting, as much as possible, morbid details in their public discussions of suicide. News media professionals should attempt to decrease the prominence of the news report and avoid the use of dramatic photographs related to the suicide (e.g., photographs of the funeral, the deceased person's bedroom, and the site of the suicide).
Reporting "how-to" descriptions of suicide.
Describing technical details about the method of suicide is undesirable. For example, reporting that a person died from carbon monoxide poisoning may not be harmful; however, providing details of the mechanism and procedures used to complete the suicide may facilitate imitation of the suicidal behavior by other at-risk persons.
Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends.
Suicide is usually a rare act of a troubled or depressed person. Presen- tation of suicide as a means of coping with personal problems (e.g., the break-up of a relationship or retaliation against parental discipline) may suggest suicide as a potential coping mechanism to at-risk persons. Although such factors often seem to trigger a suicidal act, other psychopathological problems are almost always involved. If suicide is presented as an effective means for accomplishing specific ends, it may be perceived by a potentially suicidal person as an attractive solution.
Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide.
News coverage is less likely to contribute to suicide contagion when reports of community expressions of grief (e.g., public eulogies, flying flags at half-mast, and erecting permanent public memorials) are minimized. Such actions may contribute to suicide contagion by suggesting to susceptible persons that society is honoring the suicidal behavior of the deceased person, rather than mourning the person's death.
Focusing on the suicide completer's positive characteristics.
Empathy for family and friends often leads to a focus on reporting the positive aspects of a suicide completer's life. For example, friends or teachers may be quoted as saying the deceased person "was a great kid" or "had a bright future," and they avoid mentioning the troubles and problems that the deceased person experienced. As a result, statements venerating the deceased person are often reported in the news. However, if the suicide completer's problems are not acknowledged in the presence of these laudatory statements, suicidal behavior may appear attractive to other at-risk persons -- especially those who rarely receive positive reinforcement for desirable behaviors.
CONCLUSION
In addition to recognizing the types of news coverage that can promote suicide contagion, the workshop participants strongly agreed that reporting of suicide can have several direct benefits. Specifically, community efforts to address this problem can be strengthened by news coverage that describes the help and support available in a community, explains how to identify persons at high risk for suicide, or presents information about risk factors for suicide. An ongoing dialogue between news media professionals and health and other public officials is the key to facilitating the reporting of this information.
Mental illness is not a communicable disease, but there’s a strong body of evidence that suicide is still contagious. Publicity surrounding a suicide has been repeatedly and definitively linked to a subsequent increase in suicide, especially among young people. Analysis suggests that at least 5 percent of youth suicides are influenced by contagion.
People who kill themselves are already vulnerable, but publicity around another suicide appears to make a difference as they are considering their options. The evidence suggests that suicide “outbreaks” and “clusters” are real phenomena; one death can set off others. There’s a particularly strong effect from celebrity suicides.
“Suicide contagion is real, which is why I’m concerned about it,” said Madelyn Gould, a professor of Epidemiology in Psychiatry at Columbia University, who has studied suicide contagion extensively.
Suicide is a substantial public health issue. Instances have risen over the past decade, according to a 2013 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, particularly among the middle-aged. More people die in the U.S. by suicide than in car accidents. But focusing media attention on suicide — while well-intentioned — can lead to the tragic outcome of fueling more if such a national conversation is not handled in the right way.
A coalition of journalists, along with a group of suicide prevention groups, including the American Association of Suicidology and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, have issued a set of recommendations on how to talk about suicide in the media. "Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide," which cites more than 50 research studies, notes that the amount, duration and prominence of suicide news coverage “can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals.” It can be especially harmful when the media goes into detail about how a person died, uses dramatic images or glamorizes the person’s death, according to the report.
The US has entirely normal rates of property and violent crimes, except murder, where the US is off the chart.
Off the chart as compared to?... Europe? Sure. Always have been. Even back when gun laws were roughly equivalent. Compared to some other countries with more restrictive laws on the books and fewer guns per X of population...say honduras...and no. It's not. You're a lot less likely to get dead even with our streets paved with assault weapons and high capacity ghost clips. On the other hand, if you want to restrict it to just FIREARMS homicide...well...we do like shooting each other more than other methods, but it doesn't really tell you anything beyond that.
I've seen an article yesterday, one of the mothers of one of the first victims was saying how her daughter kept refusing/turning down increasingly demanding advances from the shooter, so I would be completely unsurprised to find out he was Incel as well, and this was more inspired by that BS than anything else.
tneva82 wrote: Why even report this as news? Americans decided they want these over alternatives so it's not even newsworthy.
There is actually a lot of evidence that points to covering it causing it to happen more.
Yeah, I recall one local news channel (the clip may still be on YouTube) where they had a well respected psychologist on who explained how putting the shooter's full name up, their picture and their death toll up acted as a perverse encouragement to future mass shooters. Many, in their twisted minds see it as a means of getting noticed. Of course the local news media isn't gonna change how they do things because that would detract from their revenues.
I agree that guns do not shoot themselves but it does make it much easier to kill larger numbers, had he a knife he would not have killed as many.
There is no denying that.
Mental health in the U.S. obviously needs looked at and it is worrying that teens struggle to find the help they need.
Very glad guns are banned in the UK.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marxist artist wrote: I agree that guns do not shoot themselves but it does make it much easier to kill larger numbers, had he a knife he would not have killed as many.
There is no denying that.
Mental health in the U.S. obviously needs looked at and it is worrying that teens struggle to find the help they need.
Very glad guns are banned in the UK.
You can get pretty damn close, 9 killed in a knife attack in China recently.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
link?
All I'm finding is that he is a typical teen and all his social media is rather benign. The only thing "Nazi" is the iron cross, which is not even nazi, it predates the nazi party.
And regarding his love for Trump, the only thing I have was from Heavy which stated he only followed trump on social media.
Age-restricted products are those goods and services for which there is a minimum legal age to buy them. Trading Standards has a duty to enforce the law relating to a number of age restricted products:
alcohol
tobacco products
explosives (such as fireworks, sparklers, party poppers and caps)
solvents
butane gas refills
offensive weapons (knives)
petroleum
lottery
aerosols
videos, DVDs, video games etc
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
link?
All I'm finding is that he is a typical teen and all his social media is rather benign. The only thing "Nazi" is the iron cross, which is not even nazi, it predates the nazi party.
And regarding his love for Trump, the only thing I have was from Heavy which stated he only followed trump on social media.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
link?
All I'm finding is that he is a typical teen and all his social media is rather benign. The only thing "Nazi" is the iron cross, which is not even nazi, it predates the nazi party.
And regarding his love for Trump, the only thing I have was from Heavy which stated he only followed trump on social media.
You literally need to type his name in and the articles are there
I literally did that. Only sources that I would trust or have recognition (nbc fox, cnn etc) stated he followed trump. I found nothing about him being some "literal nazi" or posting about trump.
Only sites I found that said such were blogs or some far left version of Britebart which provided no links or screen caps. It came down to he followed trump, gun pages wore and Iron cross. He's a trump loving nazi!
I've seen an article yesterday, one of the mothers of one of the first victims was saying how her daughter kept refusing/turning down increasingly demanding advances from the shooter, so I would be completely unsurprised to find out he was Incel as well, and this was more inspired by that BS than anything else.
tneva82 wrote: Why even report this as news? Americans decided they want these over alternatives so it's not even newsworthy.
There is actually a lot of evidence that points to covering it causing it to happen more.
Yeah, I recall one local news channel (the clip may still be on YouTube) where they had a well respected psychologist on who explained how putting the shooter's full name up, their picture and their death toll up acted as a perverse encouragement to future mass shooters. Many, in their twisted minds see it as a means of getting noticed. Of course the local news media isn't gonna change how they do things because that would detract from their revenues.
Honestly with crimes like this - you really want to take them alive. Scan their brains - find out the feth is going on in there. Or at least talk to them - might learn something valuable. I really doubt this has a political angle - when I was 17 all I cared about was trying to get tail - I didn't give a dang about politics.
I wonder - this day and age is it even possible to keep the shooters name hidden from the public? If a link is made (I think it's already been made) that releasing a shooters name after a mass shooting is creating a public health concern - I think that freedom of speech and press can be restricted. With the amount of media power your average person has though - I don't think it could really be stopped.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
Plus, if you look at the link I uploaded, it took all of 20 minutes for fake profiles to start popping up showing (in real life) non-existent links to Antifa and Pride, etc. etc. Meanwhile, his real profile was loaded with the pro-trump, neo-nazi and hard-right BS that has become so ridiculously common with these types of shooters.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
Plus, if you look at the link I uploaded, it took all of 20 minutes for fake profiles to start popping up showing (in real life) non-existent links to Antifa and Pride, etc. etc. Meanwhile, his real profile was loaded with the pro-trump, neo-nazi and hard-right BS that has become so ridiculously common with these types of shooters.
How is it common? Trump, neo nazis and the alt right had nothing to do with Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, The Pulse, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook or Las Vegas.
Ustrello wrote: Well he was a neo-nazi, or at least posted a lot of their usual gak on social media
How many neo-nazis wear bisexual pride pins and a hammer and sickle pin?
vOv
He has more neo-nazi and white supremicist and trump gak posted than one hammer and sickle and one bi pride pin so that probably says more
Plus, if you look at the link I uploaded, it took all of 20 minutes for fake profiles to start popping up showing (in real life) non-existent links to Antifa and Pride, etc. etc. Meanwhile, his real profile was loaded with the pro-trump, neo-nazi and hard-right BS that has become so ridiculously common with these types of shooters.
While Fake News™ is a problem surrounding shootings, quickly trying to make the shooter as some dirty antifa commie or a alt-right literal nazi, I'm not seeing any credible source this guy was any type of neo-nazi, he had an iron cross, sure but also had a sickle and hammer. If I can take anything from that, he is some edgy teenager. I'm not seeing anything in your link (unless there is another one I'm missing) stating he was a neo-nazi or die hard Trump supporter. If there was so a great link to Nazism and the shooter it would have been plastered everywhere. The closes I can come up with on any legitimate site is his iron cross, liking gun pages and following Trump.
The Pride pin, from what I can tell is real, what is fake, is the photo with him wearing it is associated to fake social media accounts connecting him with ANTIFA.
As for all these school shooters being yuge™ Trump supporters, would you really call it a trend at this point? Nikolas Cruz wore a MAGA hat in a profile pic. Now you may have this kid who might be a Trump supporter. That's what... 2?
Police are going through his journals and computer. Maybe he is King Nazi and has an alter with a photo of Trump surrounded by candles. More than likely you will find a gak load of porn and some embarassing messages sent online.
Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
shhh. . . quit trying to ban all guns!!!!
I don't know what's worse, people who actually believe that or those on the other side who act as if a human of a very specific type is responsible type is not responsible for these shootings. Where were the school shootings 30-40 years ago? What has changed in American culture that is producing these individuals?
I think the proliferation of violent pornography, the constant hypersexualization of women, increasing levels of disrespect at all levels of society, and now internet echo chambers where incels gather and rant about how much they hate woman while idolizing other school shooters MIGHT be a factor.
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
shhh. . . quit trying to ban all guns!!!!
I don't know what's worse, people who actually believe that or those on the other side who act as if a human of a very specific type is responsible type is not responsible for these shootings. Where were the school shootings 30-40 years ago? What has changed in American culture that is producing these individuals?
I think the proliferation of violent pornography, the constant hypersexualization of women, increasing levels of disrespect at all levels of society, and now internet echo chambers where incels gather and rant about how much they hate woman while idolizing other school shooters MIGHT be a factor.
School shootings 30-40 years ago? Oh yes. In fact the belief that "millions of kids carry guns to school daily" is why something had to be done. The result was the zero gun policy's and the national school gun safety zones. Guess what, school shootings declined, and are still fewer today then before 1990. However, that same policy planted the idea that firearms in schools was something so evil, so traumatic, that the ultimate screw you society was not the suiside solution, but the mass murder of of the people around you. They were taught what power was. Point you finger like a gun playing army in kindergarten? get the cops called and suspended from school, scary stuff. Kids learn fast, only maybe not the lesson they were supposed to learn.
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
shhh. . . quit trying to ban all guns!!!!
I don't know what's worse, people who actually believe that or those on the other side who act as if a human of a very specific type is responsible type is not responsible for these shootings. Where were the school shootings 30-40 years ago? What has changed in American culture that is producing these individuals?
I think the proliferation of violent pornography, the constant hypersexualization of women, increasing levels of disrespect at all levels of society, and now internet echo chambers where incels gather and rant about how much they hate woman while idolizing other school shooters MIGHT be a factor.
Jesus donkey-cave Christ so many damned buzzwords these days I cannot keep up. What in blazes is an "incel?"
Maybe that is the problem, the modern society is far to easily putting dozens upon dozens of labels upon people. Stripping them of their humanity and leaving them nothing more than a husk, angry, empty and acting out.
You say "violent porn" but the last time I checked pornhub, the most search garbage was that gakky fake incest crap. So much so they even have a filter to hide it. Though, to be clear I'm not saying it's not out there. But is it as accessible as people think it is? IDK.
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
shhh. . . quit trying to ban all guns!!!!
I don't know what's worse, people who actually believe that or those on the other side who act as if a human of a very specific type is responsible type is not responsible for these shootings. Where were the school shootings 30-40 years ago? What has changed in American culture that is producing these individuals?
I think the proliferation of violent pornography, the constant hypersexualization of women, increasing levels of disrespect at all levels of society, and now internet echo chambers where incels gather and rant about how much they hate woman while idolizing other school shooters MIGHT be a factor.
Jesus donkey-cave Christ so many damned buzzwords these days I cannot keep up. What in blazes is an "incel?"
Maybe that is the problem, the modern society is far to easily putting dozens upon dozens of labels upon people. Stripping them of their humanity and leaving them nothing more than a husk, angry, empty and acting out.
You say "violent porn" but the last time I checked pornhub, the most search garbage was that gakky fake incest crap. So much so they even have a filter to hide it. Though, to be clear I'm not saying it's not out there. But is it as accessible as people think it is? IDK.
Normally I would tell somebody to look it up. But do NOT under any circumstances go to the incel subreddit or any of the forums. It is one of the most infuriating things you can ever see and you will get in to an argument with somebody and probably be very disappointed in humanity and yourself afterwards. Just save yourself the trouble.
trexmeyer wrote: Why can't people accept that America needs both stronger gun control laws, needs to investigate possible shooters seriously, and needs to address the toxic culture that is creating these monsters? They are repeatedly misogynistic and mentally ill. Can no one see a pattern here that needs to be addressed?
shhh. . . quit trying to ban all guns!!!!
I don't know what's worse, people who actually believe that or those on the other side who act as if a human of a very specific type is responsible type is not responsible for these shootings. Where were the school shootings 30-40 years ago? What has changed in American culture that is producing these individuals?
I think the proliferation of violent pornography, the constant hypersexualization of women, increasing levels of disrespect at all levels of society, and now internet echo chambers where incels gather and rant about how much they hate woman while idolizing other school shooters MIGHT be a factor.
Jesus donkey-cave Christ so many damned buzzwords these days I cannot keep up. What in blazes is an "incel?"
Maybe that is the problem, the modern society is far to easily putting dozens upon dozens of labels upon people. Stripping them of their humanity and leaving them nothing more than a husk, angry, empty and acting out.
You say "violent porn" but the last time I checked pornhub, the most search garbage was that gakky fake incest crap. So much so they even have a filter to hide it. Though, to be clear I'm not saying it's not out there. But is it as accessible as people think it is? IDK.
Normally I would tell somebody to look it up. But do NOT under any circumstances go to the incel subreddit or any of the forums. It is one of the most infuriating things you can ever see and you will get in to an argument with somebody and probably be very disappointed in humanity and yourself afterwards. Just save yourself the trouble.
Sutherland Shooter - Investigated for sexual assault, rape, and physical assault of his then girlfriend. Misdemeanor charge for cruelty to animals.
Umpqua Shooter - Supposedly attempted suicide and this led to his discharge, but the Army has not confirmed this explicitly. "Those officials say the writings indicate the shooter studied past mass shootings and identified with the perpetrators of those rampages. The shooter also expressed frustration at not having a girlfriend and being a virgin, the law enforcement officials say."
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/04/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/
Sandy Hook Shooter - Diagnosed with aspberger's at 13. "A document entitled "Selfish", about the inherent selfishness of women, was found on Lanza's computer after his death."
You're complaining that people are misunderstanding incels while building a list in which at least 2 of them are known to have girlfriends (or have been married) and thus are presumably not actually incels, and another has has well-established motivations that also are not "being an incel".
Being aggressive towards women, and hating women? Sure. But half the "incel" is "cel", and like half this list is missing that part.
Sutherland Shooter - Investigated for sexual assault, rape, and physical assault of his then girlfriend. Misdemeanor charge for cruelty to animals.
Umpqua Shooter - Supposedly attempted suicide and this led to his discharge, but the Army has not confirmed this explicitly. "Those officials say the writings indicate the shooter studied past mass shootings and identified with the perpetrators of those rampages. The shooter also expressed frustration at not having a girlfriend and being a virgin, the law enforcement officials say."
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/04/us/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting/
Sandy Hook Shooter - Diagnosed with aspberger's at 13. "A document entitled "Selfish", about the inherent selfishness of women, was found on Lanza's computer after his death."
Is this really not apparent yet?
Might be doing some reaching on some of that....reminds me of the 80's heavy metal music is making kids kill them selves scare. His record collection includes Ozzy Osborn! The music killed little Johnny! Now if they had dog eared copies of the catcher in the rye.....
Eeeeeh, I would say it is perfectly possible to be an incel (that is to exhibit the behaviour and views associated with incels) whilst not technically being a virgin or even celibate. Indeed, many of the incel community would still regard themselves as incels even if they were to have sex as they would automatically assume that they were being "cucked" by the woman going behind their back with a "chad".
Despite the name being a mash of "involuntary celibate", I would argue that celibacy is not the actual defining feature of an incel, misogyny is.
Half of National Socialism is Socialism, but saying you have to be a socialist to be a Nazi would be incredibly wrong.
Might be doing some reaching on some of that....reminds me of the 80's heavy metal music is making kids kill them selves scare. His record collection includes Ozzy Osborn! The music killed little Johnny! Now if they had dog eared copies of the catcher in the rye.....
Much of the incel "community" is pretty much grooming young men to regard women as not even human and the cause of all their problems (referring to them as femoids, saying that women are selfish because they don't allow themselves to be gang raped etc.). They are also being told that wider society (the normies) is enabling their oppression and is so disgusted by the incel that they will never help them.
They act just like any other online predator, and you'll have a hard time arguing that people cannot be influenced by persistent grooming behaviour.
The incel community also actively discourages its members from seeking any help outside of the community. They seek to isolate people, destroy any sense of self worth or capability to improve your situation through changing yourself. The only way for things to improve is for society to change so that the incels are given femoids to use.
Did you really just compare 80's metal to a community that actively believes woman are essentially nothing but prostitutes (they use a more explicit term), that they deserve sex, and that rape isn't really that bad of a crime? Oh, and society is aligned against them and they are all victims?
The mere existence of incels is on a level of sad and shame I did not know the human race was capable of. It is one of those things that I feel like we have an entire generation of self-entitled idiots that need a serious kicking to the ass (this is in combination with every single person trying to argue politics by going to the extreme, not realizing they're not helping their case).
I personally think the thing everyone needs this day in age is Shame. Like actual self retrospective shame. Because the idea of being proud of what you are as gone to the point where everyone is now proud to be shameless and stupid and expect to be praised for it. There's a reason in ages past said qualities were associated with the town idiot.
Ouze wrote: You're complaining that people are misunderstanding incels while building a list in which at least 2 of them are known to have girlfriends (or have been married) and thus are presumably not actually incels, and another has has well-established motivations that also are not "being an incel".
Being aggressive towards women, and hating women? Sure. But half the "incel" is "cel", and like half this list is missing that part.
Perhaps the "cel" was accurate when they formed their worldview and thus remained relevant after they lost their virginity.
Ouze wrote: You're complaining that people are misunderstanding incels while building a list in which at least 2 of them are known to have girlfriends (or have been married) and thus are presumably not actually incels, and another has has well-established motivations that also are not "being an incel".
Being aggressive towards women, and hating women? Sure. But half the "incel" is "cel", and like half this list is missing that part.
IMHO, it is entirely possible that while some members of Trex's list were not actually Incel, they may certainly have inspired others who are on the list, or otherwise part of that group.
All I was trying (and apparently failing) to make clear was that mass shooters consistently have misogynistic tendencies, a history of mental illness, and a history of social isolation.
trexmeyer wrote: All I was trying (and apparently failing) to make clear was that mass shooters consistently have misogynistic tendencies, a history of mental illness, and a history of social isolation.
Very true. What to do about it though? I have no idea.
Kilkrazy wrote: One thing is certain, fewer guns would not help.
Really? Why don't we give them all bazooka's because one thing is certain fewer bazooka's would not help.
I find that statement slightly staggering, while it's not the sole root of the problem it has to be part of it. Next you will tell me armed teachers are a good thing.
Guns just being part of household items I find slightly scared.
Kilkrazy wrote: One thing is certain, fewer guns would not help.
Really? Why don't we give them all bazooka's because one thing is certain fewer bazooka's would not help.
I find that statement slightly staggering, while it's not the sole root of the problem it has to be part of it. Next you will tell me armed teachers are a good thing.
Guns just being part of household items I find slightly scared.
Kilkrazy wrote: One thing is certain, fewer guns would not help.
Really? Why don't we give them all bazooka's because one thing is certain fewer bazooka's would not help.
I find that statement slightly staggering, while it's not the sole root of the problem it has to be part of it. Next you will tell me armed teachers are a good thing.
Guns just being part of household items I find slightly scared.
Kilkrazy wrote: One thing is certain, fewer guns would not help.
You are obviously right, so let's not even let that be mentioned or considered.
Instead, let's talk about how we can get even more guns into people's hands.
… and make students wear transparent backpacks, install metal detectors, add more (armed) security, install cameras (add facial recognition software), have active shooter drills, give teachers guns/baseball bats/a buckets of rocks. Do that and more to turn schools into something that feels more like a prison. But don't dare to ever imagine that easy access to guns might be part of the issue.
trexmeyer wrote: Did you really just compare 80's metal to a community that actively believes woman are essentially nothing but prostitutes (they use a more explicit term), that they deserve sex, and that rape isn't really that bad of a crime? Oh, and society is aligned against them and they are all victims?
Did you really do that?
No. I compared the idea that that small sampling of incels being extrapolated to cover the root cause of mass school shootings is like how Tipper Gore responded to the music scene of the day.
So, are you surprised that a mass murderer would have misogynistic tendencies? I'd be surprised if they had only misogynistic tendencies. When someone has hit the point of mass murder they have usually passed through a variety of monstrous behavior or belief to get there.
I had never heard the term incel before today, and hopefully it's a small community. In fact, based on what others have said about the incel community it sounds like they would produce more sexual predators.
Which is why we need more guns. Ok, to soon, to soon.
trexmeyer wrote: All I was trying (and apparently failing) to make clear was that mass shooters consistently have misogynistic tendencies, a history of mental illness, and a history of social isolation.
Very true. What to do about it though? I have no idea.
Imagine a world where healthcare is free and guns laws requiring safe storage of guns are actually enforced.
No wait. No. THE COMMULISTS ARE COMING FOR US! WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN! NOT SOCIANISM!
I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 4th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 4th.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 7th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 7th.
Wow, that escalated quickly. We wen't from having somebody other than the police doing it to the new group breaking and entering with no warrant in order to do whatever they want.
This is brilliant. Just pure brilliant BS and fearmongering. Kudos to you sir.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight. Prevents police from getting free house searches. Which is great because you should never ever trust the police, they do not have your best interest in mind.
These are not unsolvable problems.
Yeah no. Not only would you be potentially violating the 2nd amendment, but you'd definitely be violating the 7th.
Where do you draw the line at what constitutes proper storage? Do you require everybody to have their guns locked in an expensive, and very large, gunsafe at all times? That treads into areas where you'd be denying the gun owner's right to self defense if they can't access their firearm quickly. You would also potentially be effectively denying their 2nd amendement right by making it too difficult to have the proper storage, either because its too expensive or because they don't live in a house with enough space to have a safe of whatever dimensions and specifications are required. No one thing here is an issue by itself, but all together you end up breaking the camel's back little by little. You make the 2nd a right only able to be practiced by people with enough income to afford both a safe and the space to hold it. Granted, there are affordable safes out there, but outside of drawer safes for handguns none of them are close to compact.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency, but also has authority from the government to enforce the laws by doing inspections on demand whenever they want. I don't think it would be possible to be an enforcer of government laws and simultaneously be independent of said government. Either you'd have a private organization committing forced entry and criminal trespass on private property OR you have a government entity committing an illegal search without probable cause in violation of the 7th.
Wow, that escalated quickly. We wen't from having somebody other than the police doing it to the new group breaking and entering with no warrant in order to do whatever they want.
This is brilliant. Just pure brilliant BS and fearmongering. Kudos to you sir.
If this group has government authority to conduct searches and enforce the law, they are a government agency. Doing blanket unjustified searches of personal property is a violation of the 4th amendment. You have to have probable cause and apply for a search warrant. "This person owns guns" isn't probably cause for a violation. Even if the law right now said everybody who has a gun has to keep it in a bank vault with 2" steel plate and 3 different types of locking mechanisms, you'd still need probable cause to search someone's house who you suspected didn't own such a safe. You couldn't conduct random inspections whenever you wanted.
If this group doesn't have government authority, they're trespassers.
Thats not fearmongering or BS. Thats how the law works.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 4th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Haven't most of the misogynistic strand of shooters legally acquired their guns? How do you keep them from acquiring guns if they have no prior record?
My suggestiosn:
1) Felons can are still denied access to firearms regardless of the felony.
2) Any misdemeanor assault bars you from purchasing a firearm for a minimum of 5 years and you are required to turn over any firearms in your possession.
3) Medical records are allowed to be checked. Any history of mental illness OF any kind within the last X years prevents you from immediately purchasing a firearm. Make it like a 30 day wait or something. Any record of a suicide attempt, expressed desire to do harm against others, sociopathic or otherwise violent tendencies within the last X years prevents you form purchasing a firearm.
4) Raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm nationwide to 25.
5) Decriminalize possession up to X amount (what someone could use in 2-3 days IMO) and stop wasting time chasing those people.
6) Pass a law requiring firearms to either be stored in a safe or with a lock that prevents firing (IDR the name) unless the owner is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon at the time.
7) Punish neglectful owners whose firearms are used in any kind of assault.
However, my opinion is that the issue is primarily a cultural one in that mass shootings are, by and large, carried out by young, mentally ill males. The symptoms can be reduced, but the disease will not be destroyed without addressing that. Even then, there will always be criminals and there will always be hate.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
trexmeyer wrote: Haven't most of the misogynistic strand of shooters legally acquired their guns? How do you keep them from acquiring guns if they have no prior record?
Well that is the thing. You're not a criminal until you've broken the law. Best you can do is something like the Red Flag laws. Or with dudes like the Parkland shooter actually enforce existing laws, that guy could and should have been locked up long ago. Its just people chose to do nothing.
My suggestiosn:
1) Felons can are still denied access to firearms regardless of the felony.
2) Any misdemeanor assault bars you from purchasing a firearm for a minimum of 5 years and you are required to turn over any firearms in your possession.
3) Medical records are allowed to be checked. Any history of mental illness OF any kind within the last X years prevents you from immediately purchasing a firearm. Make it like a 30 day wait or something. Any record of a suicide attempt, expressed desire to do harm against others, sociopathic or otherwise violent tendencies within the last X years prevents you form purchasing a firearm.
4) Raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm nationwide to 25.
5) Decriminalize possession up to X amount (what someone could use in 2-3 days IMO) and stop wasting time chasing those people.
6) Pass a law requiring firearms to either be stored in a safe or with a lock that prevents firing (IDR the name) unless the owner is in the immediate vicinity of the weapon at the time.
7) Punish neglectful owners whose firearms are used in any kind of assault.
1) Already Federal Law. If you're a convicted felon, you can't possess firearms ever again.
2) Bad idea. Misdemeanor assault covers a range of very minor things. At most, I'd say if you have a misdemeanor assault you could be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and posessing, but only for a short time. 1 year at most, and then I'd say only if you've had multiple misdemeanor assaults or similar offenses. A one off minor issue like being involved in a barroom brawl shouldn't strip you of a constitutional right for 5 years. If you keep doing it, sure.
3) Maybe, but we'd need to be very careful about what kinds of mental illness and how you define mental illness for the purposes of this law. You'd need to carefully have this documented too. You wouldn't want only one person's word or report get you on a registrar of crazy people.
4) Hell no. If you're old enough to vote, you should have access to all your constitutional rights. If you ever managed to get the voting age raised to 25, then maybe we could revisit this.
5) Possession of what? Drugs? I'm ok with having policy's not to prosecute if the possession is the only violation and its only a personal amount. Not sure exactly how this is relevant to shootings.
6) Unenforceable, and any attempt to enforce it would open up the issues I raised in my previous post.
7) Maybe, but again its difficult to prove and it deflects blame away from the people who actually committed the crime.
However, my opinion is that the issue is primarily a cultural one in that mass shootings are, by and large, carried out by young, mentally ill males. The symptoms can be reduced, but the disease will not be destroyed without addressing that. Even then, there will always be criminals and there will always be hate.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
I am aware they do it. I'm not ok with it.
As for the 3rd party, I wasn't sure what you meant in your original post. It sure seemed you might be implying it wouldn't be a government agency. Especially since you were trying to come at the angle of not having the police do it, and Government Law Enforcement = Police. Be they federal, state, or local. FBI, ATF, ICE, State, and Local Police are all Police agencies. Even the freaking IRS has its own police. So this new/existing agency you'd have inspecting everybody's guns would infact be Police of some flavor.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Also, the constitution gives you the right to own a gun and that right can be taken away.
And here you have a theoretical 3rd party organization of some kind which somehow is not a government agency
So are they a government agency or are they not? If they are not a government agency, how do they have any authority to enter a house? Call the fething cops on them.
You started frothing at the mouth there and not making sense because I brought up gun control. Somehow making sure people abide by the laws of properly storing firearms is now some sort of constitutional crisis.
You suggested a 3rd party group be the ones to do the inspections to enforce safe storage.
Why do the police have to do it? Could be a 3rd party with oversight.
Now, either this group is a non-government agency. In which case they have no authority to do inspections at all, and any "inspections" done by them are nothing more than trespassing. Obviously, trespassing is illegal.
Or this group is a new or existing government agency. You are suggesting this group inspect everyone who owns guns to see if they are storing their firearms properly. The problem with this is that that is a violation of the 7th amendment. You need evidence that someone is improperly storing their firearms before you can inspect where they are storing them. Same reason police cannot pull you over unless you are doing something that indicates you are doing/have done something illegal or if they actually witness an illegal act. And even if they do pull you over, for say a busted taillight, they still can't search your vehicle unless you give consent or they see something illegal in plain view or something else that gives probable cause.
Simply owning a gun would definitely not pass the smell test for probable cause to allow inspections out of the blue.
Okay so, first I am going to really ruin your view of the police. The police do this all the time. They pull people over for no reason. A lot of them are called DUI checkpoints. Or you can just get pulled over for driving too close to the lines for half a second. (Happened to me!) Now with that fun little issue solved, we can move on to the next.
I see you have figured out that 3rd party doesn't mean civilian and you are going with the new/existing government agency. Just so happy this conversation is moving forward.
Being pulled over on a road way is not the same as searching a house. Noticed how you gave a reason for being pulled over, driving too close to the line. That opens the probable cause to stop you. They still don't have the right to search your car, unless during your interaction with the police you give them permission. They can look in, see anything that is open to public view, but not search.
Also, the state gives you the permission to drive, as such they can take it away. Our constitution is based on the belief that some rights are inalienable, grated by a power higher than any government of man. The right to defend oneself, is part of the right to life and liberty.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Also, the constitution gives you the right to own a gun and that right can be taken away.
No, it doesn't give them probably cause to stop me. Driving too close to a line is not reckless or illegal.
Actually, driving too close to the line would fall under Reckless driving. Yes, it is a flimsy justification, but it is there. And yes, police can abuse this by just saying "You drove too close to the line" without you really having been reckless.
This is way different than police saying "This person owns guns and might be storing them improperly" and using that as justification for getting a search warrant. No judge would sign off on that warrant. Its a totally different level of breaking the law. Pulling you over on a thin justification is really treading the line, but using that as an example to show cops could willy nilly search anybody's house because you have guns doesn't work. Thats just so far into blatantly illegal territory that not even the most anti-gun of judges wouldn't sign off on that.
So, are you telling me that police can stop me and do a visual search of my car and ask me for license and registration without me committing a crime or giving any sort of consent?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, are you telling me that police can stop me and do a visual search of my car and ask me for license and registration without me committing a crime or giving any sort of consent?
No. What they can do is use a flimsy justification like you going just a little too close to the line to pull the "Reckless driving" line. Its not right, but there isn't much you can do about that other than fight any ticket you may get in court. And if you do fight something that had flimsy justification you can get it dismissed. Lots of people don't fight minor tickets which, if they tried at all, could get tossed out fairly trivially. Assuming something more severe didn't get found.
What they definitely can't do is physically search your vehicle without a warrant unless you consent OR something like drugs, a body, or something else of similar severity is plainly visible from outside the car. This applies even if they arrest you for something like DUI because you failed a field sobriety check.
This is why Cops will, if they see someone they want to pull over, might follow someone around for a bit before pulling them over. They're waiting for them to do something they can use to justify a stop. Then during the stop they'll try to weasel consent to search out of you or look for something they can plainly see from outside the car that gives them probably cause to do a search.
So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
No, it is illegal. Just nobody will punish them for it.
Saying it is legal for a cop to stop me with no justification is absurd. But that is okay. However, asking a person to comply with laws is out of hand.
But here is the deal. I have to provide license, registration, proof of insurance. So I was searched. They should wait until I have been in a wreck to check my insurance, no?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
That's how it works on most of the world. Part of the social contract of owning a gun here is that cops can show up without any warning and ask to see where you keep your guns and ammo.
I once had a cop approach me at the range and ask me about a recent uptick in ammo purchases (all ammo purchases have to be done through the same license you have the guns for) I just answered that I was preparing for the IPSC nationals and that was it. I'm positive that if I'd given a suspicious answer or I failed to show up at the range for a while after purchasing too much ammo next step would be a friendly home visit.
It's not 100% foolproof (just last week a sports shooter shot his girlfriend then himself right at the range they both were practising, he was on some drugs for depression which usually means he should have had his guns removed) but at least you don't have toddlers shooting parents and kids shooting other kids.
Just for comparison, checking there is a secure storage place for the gun is part of the gun licence process in the UK; it’s done by the local police as part of the background checks and (depending on the area*) can be as simple as a locked gun clamp (so not an expensive safe).
You also need to provide a letter from your GP confirming that you don’t have any mental conditions or illness that means you would be a risk to yourself or others.
* There is a weird quirk in the UK gun laws that the application is down to individual local constabularies, so the interpretation and guidance varies quite a lot across the country.
Now an honest question, given that there are various background checks taken when people in the US buy a gun, every time, wouldn’t it save time and money (and provide a more robust system) to just have a licence that does the same checks, but on a routine basis? This can’t/shouldn’t be a second amendment issue, because you already accept that those checks and limitations are required.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
I wonder if home gun inspections would be hard to roll out in the USA? One aspect to consider is how common guns are compared to countries like the UK. Home inspection is a great idea, but at a practical level of enforcing it you've got to have inspectors (eg police) free to actually carry out the inspections.
I'd think the USA might have to dedicate a separate force of police or enforcement group to carry out the massive number of inspections and to keep up with them otherwise it could seriously eat into regular police time for other duties.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Actually......
We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Actually......
We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.
That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.
For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.
I'd think the USA might have to dedicate a separate force of police or enforcement group to carry out the massive number of inspections and to keep up with them otherwise it could seriously eat into regular police time for other duties.
We have no national registry (for good reason IMO), so you have no way of knowing who owns what, outside of the NFA lists. You would literally have to go door-to-door and tear peoples houses apart looking for guns.
Dreadwinter wrote: My gods, you barbarians. How do you sleep at night knowing your police force ensured that a gun was in the hands of a competent and responsible adult?
People have referenced how the police can do sketchy things dealing with drivers. How do you think it would go with any other activity they perform. Especially if it's in the hands of a local constabulary.
Look at some states in the US and the carry permit process. Or how some firearm laws are applied.
New York, state and city. If you aren't connected to the ruling elite, no permit for you.
California, have you been Victim of violence? No permit for you.
Massachusetts. Got to love Massachusetts, they have minimum sentencing for gun crimes that they never intended to use unless the perpetrator was of an undesirable social class, and will not apply if someone is an emigrant (illegal or legal)because of 1+ year long prison terms can lead to deportation. The only time I am aware of the law being applied is when someone uses a weapon in self defense.
Historically. black? No gun for you.
In fact the first gun control laws were written to keep firearms out of the hands of black folk, and poor folk.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?
In my experience, meter readers read meters on your home, not in them. And even that is on the way out; most meters are now wireless and the only meter readings in person are for the tin-foil hat crowd who are convince the smart meters are just the entry point for Jade Helm chemtrail FEMA camps.
Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Actually......
We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.
That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.
For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.
Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.
Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.
Cops can't arrest you for possessing drug paraphernalia over here either. At most they'll take it with them if they think it's a risk you'll use it in public.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Actually......
We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.
That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.
For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.
Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.
Still, what's the point of joining a gun club if you don't have a gun?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?
By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.
Additionally, meter readers aren't empowered to arrest the occupants of the home if they see, for example, drug paraphernalia laying out. So it's a pretty big distinction.
Cops can't arrest you for possessing drug paraphernalia over here either. At most they'll take it with them if they think it's a risk you'll use it in public.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Again, its not technically illegal that they are pulling you over. Its douchy and flimsy, but it is legal justification. Again, because they have to wait for you to do something so they can legally pull you over.
Its a totally different level then what would be going on for cops to search people's houses on a whim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't get the focus on inspections. Can't they just have a widespread info campaign on the new law and then hit violators with massive fines when they are discovered (in the course of legal police investigation)?
Yes, they could do that. It would raise less legal issues for sure, no blatant violation of the 4th. You'd only have the potential issue of making legally practicing the 2nd amendment to be "People of X income bracket and higher" and running afoul of "shall not be infringed". But the general unenforcability of the law would likely see it remain in place.
Isn't it already expensive to buy a gun? Not everyone can afford them now, so why does the cost suddenly matter when it includes the gun and a lock?
Seconded. If it's part of the cost of ownership, it shouldn't be an issue. I take it there aren't any current methods by which low-income Americans can apply for a free gun, because they can't afford to buy one to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
Actually......
We have a government program that allows citizens who are involved in organized shooting clubs with a history of firearms training to purchase surplus firearms at a discount. The discount used to be quite large. Think 20~30% of what you would pay in a retail environment.
That's quite a different thing from an I'm-so-broke-I-can't-buy-my-first-gun government grant, though.
For starters if you're too poor to buy a single gun it's unlikely you're member of a shooting club. Hoarders and collectors will surely take advantage of it for sure.
Lucky for us we have gun clubs that the entry fee is equal to 3~5 cups of Starbucks coffee. Feth in the USA some fun communities make it illegal to give free food to the poor so totally free hand outs can be rare.
Still, what's the point of joining a gun club if you don't have a gun?
Depends, some gun clubs are historic in nature and produce interesting literature. I think I used to pay more for the citadel master catalog than it costs to join the ( I'm making this one up) Glock19 lovers association. Both of which put out a yearly publication I wanted to look at.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?
By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.
Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.
I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
Ouze wrote: I'm all for people storing firearms safely. I think when there is a crime committed by someone who shouldn't have had access to a firearm, the person who was responsible for it should be prosecuted. I know that it's a difficult choice to prosecute a parent who lost a child, but when that child is gone because they found dad's glock under a couch, then that's not a "tragic accident"... it's negligence. Criminal negligence, specifically. We punish criminal negligence to deter others from it, ideally.
How do you enforce gun storage requirements, though? Do you have the cops search houses, or what? If they search your house to confirm your guns are secure, do they now have probable cause to arrest you if they see something else? It's problematic.
They would need a warrant to search in the first place.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?
By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.
Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.
No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.
EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...
It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.
Depends, some gun clubs are historic in nature and produce interesting literature. I think I used to pay more for the citadel master catalog than it costs to join the ( I'm making this one up) Glock19 lovers association. Both of which put out a yearly publication I wanted to look at.
Are we still speaking about whether members of a gun club getting discounts and a handout to poor people to buy guns are anything remotely comparable?
Kilkrazy wrote: Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?
Insurance companies also frequently come out and inspect. If you have doors that lead to nowhere or a large trampoline they will ask you to remove them/secure them or get a hike in rates. No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess? Obviously, there is precedence for third party home searches AND relating it to Insurance rates instead of criminal charges. That seems like a pretty clear and Market based way forward.
Now, if the search occurred after someone got shot, and was part of the investigation would people still be all crazy about Police searching and determining if a weapon was properly stored for the reason of potentially filing chrges or a criminal complaint?
Easy E wrote: No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess?
I think its because the meter-man can only legally check the meter. They can't decide to check other rooms in the house; go through your stuff; demand access to your computer; call up files on your criminal history etc... They come and check the meter and normally they want to be in and out and done fairly fast.
They are also not trained to look for other things either; they could walk in and smell common drug smells and not realise what it is* or even see some common drug items (eg micro scales) and not think anything of it. Basically when the meter reader (or any other 3rd party comes) you've got to go out of your way to show criminal activity for them to spot it and then contact the police.
In addition most meter and insurance and other 3rd parties have to both seek permission to enter and also will send a letter to arrange a meeting time. Of course there are legal structures in place to allow some forced entry (eg meter readers can gain entry to remove services in case you've not paid- for example) but its far more drawn out and will often come with lots of notices of final payment and the like.
About the only group as scary/empowered as the police would probably be bailiffs.
*I've no idea what cannabis or any other smoked drugs smell like having never had involvement with drugs; and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do utility companies in the USA read the meters in people's homes?
Few homes in the US have their meters inside the building. It’s not like the UK where you have the meter man checking inside the closet under the stairs.
Easy E wrote: No one freaks out about this third party coming out and doing this because.... Capitalism I guess?
I think its because the meter-man can only legally check the meter. They can't decide to check other rooms in the house; go through your stuff; demand access to your computer; call up files on your criminal history etc... They come and check the meter and normally they want to be in and out and done fairly fast.
They are also not trained to look for other things either; they could walk in and smell common drug smells and not realise what it is* or even see some common drug items (eg micro scales) and not think anything of it. Basically when the meter reader (or any other 3rd party comes) you've got to go out of your way to show criminal activity for them to spot it and then contact the police.
In addition most meter and insurance and other 3rd parties have to both seek permission to enter and also will send a letter to arrange a meeting time. Of course there are legal structures in place to allow some forced entry (eg meter readers can gain entry to remove services in case you've not paid- for example) but its far more drawn out and will often come with lots of notices of final payment and the like.
About the only group as scary/empowered as the police would probably be bailiffs.
*I've no idea what cannabis or any other smoked drugs smell like having never had involvement with drugs; and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's a private contractual service. If I am not contracted with the power company, they can't inspect anything.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?
By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.
Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.
No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.
The fact that the Second Amendment wasn't part of the constitution until 1791 blatantly disproves your claims: your "founding documents" weren't crafted to ensure your citizens could be armed if they wished; that was added afterwards. Stop pretending that it's impossible to decide that a certain right shouldn't exist any more. They're not god-given, they exist because society has decided that it is desirable that they do so. They're a social construct.
And while we're at it, your understanding of what constitutes "freedom" is seriously narrow-minded.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
The big difference here is when you are in your home you are on your property - where you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want. When you are on a public road there are a lot more things you can't do - which is why it's a lot easier to "illegally" pull someone over. Illegally is in quotations because there is a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to determining if someone is driving recklessly.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The "shall not be infringed" part is already bollocks. Felons can't own guns, can they?
By that logic, we should have no prisons because that infringed upon freedom? The constitution is about limiting government and the laws they can pass. Also how the basic flow of how the judiciary interacts with citizens.
Correct. That's the ultimate conclusion one has to draw from tha linet reasoning, which is why treating the right to bear arms as an absolute is absurd.
No, what's absurd is expecting a free people to give up a basic right. I understand how someone who is not free doesn't quite get that.
Our nation was founded on the idea that the people, citizens, were the best defense of a free society. As a slave nation we certainly believed that the right of freedom was conditional, but our founding documents were crafted to aid in the abolishing of that hypocrisy. Much like it was crafted to ensure our citizens were armed if they wished.
The fact that the Second Amendment wasn't part of the constitution until 1791 blatantly disproves your claims: your "founding documents" weren't crafted to ensure your citizens could be armed if they wished; that was added afterwards. Stop pretending that it's impossible to decide that a certain right shouldn't exist any more. They're not god-given, they exist because society has decided that it is desirable that they do so. They're a social construct.
And while we're at it, your understanding of what constitutes "freedom" is seriously narrow-minded.
The constitution is a living document - it can be changed. The second amendment is special though - "shall not be infringed" is essentially a don't remove me clause.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.
EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...
It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.
It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.
Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.
EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...
It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.
It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.
Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.
If you sell a gun in a private sale you should be recording it with a bill of sale for your own liability concerns. If you buy a gun in a private sale you should also get a copy of the bill of sale when you purchase the gun. That's easy, common sense precautions. If I was selling a gun and it was possible to run a NICS check for free on my phone/computer I would run a check on the buyer but there's no way to enforce a law that would require me to do so.
I've been to my club range frequently and other ranges too and I've never seen anyone ask about the serial number on somebody's firearm because there's a concern it was stolen.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that one of the best ways to make gun ownership more responsible is to make background checks easier and free. If you demand that everyone do a background check for every gun sale, then make them accessible to anyone with a smart phone.
Personally, if I were to sell a gun to someone I didn't know I'd prefer to do a background check. A lot of people would. But for many people that means an extra $30 and a 50 mile trip to the local gun store. Not exactly practical, so they don't do it.
This is a good place to start. Its practical, useful, and something towards gun contraol that most owners can get behind. I know that the dude I'm selling my rifle to isn't a felon, or on the run, I save time and money. Background checks at my local store (the only one in 20 miles) are $35 per person if you are transferring a firearm without purchasing from them. This also gives the ATF the paper trail they want if the gun gets used in a crime, which protects me. And this also closes the "gun show loophole" catchphrase that gets thrown around alot. Literally everybody wins.
EDIT: I apparently used extra punctuation...
It would be a law that only effects law abiding citizens. Not actually useful in preventing crime but as you point out a good step towards gun control which given that the end goal of which is a disarmed population should be prevented. People don't believe in giving tools that could be used for crime to law abiding citizens because they could be used for crime. I don't believe in given government tools that could be used for tyranny because they could be used for tyranny.
It would be useful in making sure that law abiding citizens don't catch the shaft for doing nothing wrong. Lets play through this again
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you a rifle for $300 cash. You then have your home broken into and the rifle stolen, and it is used in a crime. Chain of evidence points to me as the last owner, and all you have to do is deny I ever sold it to you.
I sell you a rifle in Pennsylvania (private sales legal, no background check required). You seem like an ok guy, and show me your licence so I know you are over 18. I sell you the gun for $300 cash. Turns out I stole it, and the proper owner gave the police the serial number to the gun. You get caught with it at the range a few weeks later. You are now charged with possesion of a stolen firearm, good luck wiggling out of that one.
Not all laws harm law-abiding citizens, and sometimes people need to learn to give a little ground in their beliefs, before they lose even more due to resistance.
Let's continue that chain. Here is the bill of sale officer friendly, sucks I'm out $300 and a rifle after It's confiscated. Let the court know I'd like restitution for his crime of selling me a stolen rifle. Or simply, here is my bill of sale officer. Lock up mister scumbag.
In the UK when a car is sold whether privately or by a company, there is a document to fill in and send to the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority) to ensure the transfer of ownership is recorded. This helps solve a lot of problems when vehicles are stolen or used in various offences such as wrong parking, driving without insurance, and so on.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
I remember when your monarch could walk the streets at night without a guard.
I think you had fewer firearms laws then too.
Correlation =/= causation. There were also fewer countries in the Balkans back in Gustav VI Adolf's time, does that mean the number of countries in the Balkans causes gun crime to drop?
You still haven't adressed the fact that rights are social constructs.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
Just stating the way it is now. Though it really seems unnecessary to have the state entering peoples to make sure their guns are in safes. None of mine are (except my rifles) - I live alone and have a gun in every room that is easy for me to access. A gun is a safe is useless for self defense (unless you have a very expensive thumb lock safe). The only person at risk from my guns is an unwelcome guest. I don't waive my rights to privacy for owning a gasoline tank that could surely cause a lot of damage if improperly stored. Nor do I forfit might rights for having a water heater which can potentially launch out of my garage and blow up my neighbors house. There is no reasonable danger from guns not stored in a safe - certainly less dangerous than the things I mentioned above. People with minors living in their houses should have to use safety devices or suffer prosecution for negligence that is about as far as I am willing to go on that.
Plus - there is no way to really enforce these kinds of inspections without a gun registry. I can pretty much assure you - if something like that happens the extreme right is going to lose their freaking minds.
Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?
Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.
There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.
However perhaps avoiding the extreme right from losing their minds is not the top concern of the people who want more gun control.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
Hrm, that absolutely would not fly in the US. The most basic exercise of one freedom cannot and does not forfeit another freedom, especially without due process.
Even aside from the legal issues, there are deep social, cultural, and economic issues that would make random home police inspections...a questionable possibility in the US. Americans, broadly speaking, simply do not have the toleration for such police intrusion, police have never shown themselves to be great actors in such capacities (and public trust is low as a result, the drug war has not been kind), and the resources necessary for such inspections on the scale of tens of millions would be enormous, and the efficacy...questionable in relation to that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?
Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.
There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.
People don't have a legal right or need to have nuclear reactors. Can you think of something else similar to change my perspective here? What dangerous things can Americans have in their homes that they are currently not forced to have state inspections for?
It will be a sad day for everyone. Remember Waco? It will be like that all over the place. It would do a lot more harm than good. That is a the definition of a bad idea.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?
As long as you are not using material that is legally designated as being owned by the US Dept of energy (uranium and plutonium), you absolutely do not. For small fusion reactors (yes they do exist, several dozen individuals have made them in the US, they dont provide much power and require more power to operate than they output, but they do exist), you can build one in your apartment with no legal restrictions.
More to the point however, if we're talking something like a traditonal uranium fed fission reactor, that is something beyond the means of the individual, that is a major undertaking involving dozens or hundreds of people, the scale of such an item is just too far beyond the scope of personal ownership.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would you forfeit your right to privacy by operating a nuclear reactor?
Naturally you would, because society understands that certain types of facilities and equipment need to be monitored for safety by higher authorities than their immediate owner.
There would need to be a gun registry. The extreme right will lose their minds. It will be a sad day for them when it comes about.
However perhaps avoiding the extreme right from losing their minds is not the top concern of the people who want more gun control.
We aren't talking about gun control. We are talking about the state coming into my house and forcing me to do things. I honestly pity anyone that has to deal with that kind of invasion for any reason. You could pass some gun laws and it wouldn't cause the reaction (though they will almost certainly have no affect) I was talking about but things like gun registries (which would be a useful tool in disarming Americans in the future) and forced state inspections inside your home (a breach of another constitutional right) will have that reaction.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.
Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.
Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.
Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.
So out of the some odd 500 million firearms in the states - how many are currently registered? Like less than 5%?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.
I bought a few pistols without a concealed permit - I think those are registered to me in some way.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
Of course - that is not something I would want to deal with on a regular basis ether and in all honesty - I would probably sell all my registered firearms as a result. Here in the states though - you don't even have to register your firearms - you are supposed to but most people don't.
Other than a literal handful of states you don't ever have to register any of your firearms in the US. CT has an assault weapon registry that's been around for a few years but law enforcement and gun owners are ignoring it. A few states make you register a pistol to your concealed carry permit. There is no national registry and the majority of states have no registry either. A very tiny percentage of gun owners in the US are supposed to register a few particular firearms under specific circumstances in a few states, that's it.
So out of the some odd 500 million firearms in the states - how many are currently registered? Like less than 5%?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Theres no mechanism for registration in most places outside of NFA items, annd maybe half a dozen states with varying registration requirements depending on the type of firearm IIRC.
I bought a few pistols without a concealed permit - I think those are registered to me in some way.
Probably less than 5% and all of those are only registered locally nothing more than intrastate.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
That is all sorts of messed up.
In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.
Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?
To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
I remember when your monarch could walk the streets at night without a guard.
I think you had fewer firearms laws then too.
Correlation =/= causation. There were also fewer countries in the Balkans back in Gustav VI Adolf's time, does that mean the number of countries in the Balkans causes gun crime to drop?
You still haven't adressed the fact that rights are social constructs.
Didn't mean to imply causation. Was pointing out how your society is becoming less free. Your monarch can't freely walk the streets. Less freedom also does not mean more safety. It just means less freedom. Freedom is something we are always talking about right? Free to choose safe foods. Free to choose clean energy. Free to marry whomever you wish, worship however you wish. Free to study what you wish. Free to discuss what you wish. Only freedom can be scary, so better reign that in. For a ruling class freedom is only good to get you to the top. Then you reign that in before someone else climbs that same ladder.
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
That is all sorts of messed up.
In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.
Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?
You sure you aren't wearing a hat of +5 Hyperbole? You pretty consistently pick up a point and take off into the boonies with it.
Herzlos was stating who it works where they are located, and that seems pretty reasonable. It's not "pants on head stupid". It works for them.
What is "pants on head stupid" is posters claiming the right will go full on Waco to prevent a legal government authority from ensuring their precious One Ring, er, guns are safely stored according to the law.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
There is a considerable middle ground of people who would be happy with reasonable restrictions such as licensing (safety training, etc), registration and banning the sale of high capacity weapons such as the assault rifles that have been used in so many recent massacres.
That is where the compromise will be found, and the vociferous but less numerous groups at the two ends of the spectrum will end up not getting everything that they want, but at least getting some of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms? Rights are nice and great, but a school is not a place where it should ever invite the possibility of a shooting in my understanding (I would think of a range from a bank to the battlefield would be more appropriate). In my head it's the same old argument with the "drive slower" crowd: Other people make mistakes, so drive slow even if you don't. Similarly, other people might be irresponsible with their guns even if you are not. For those of you who have both a kid and your guns, would you lock the guns away/get rid of them completely if that meant that your kid gets to go to school safely every day?
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
There is a considerable middle ground of people who would be happy with reasonable restrictions such as licensing (safety training, etc), registration and banning the sale of high capacity weapons such as the assault rifles that have been used in so many recent massacres.
That is where the compromise will be found, and the vociferous but less numerous groups at the two ends of the spectrum will end up not getting everything that they want, but at least getting some of it.
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns. Also, when the interactive map in NYC of all registered gun owners wen't live, robberies spiked, because people knew who had guns, and who didn't. This isn't classified information, you can look up registry lists if you put in Freedom of Information Act requests.
Also, define an "assault weapon" and what constitutes "high capacity" magazines. And how do you deal with the millions already in circulation?
I'm ok with making background checks required (as discussed above), as well as gun theft reporting (those are massively under-reported in the US). I'd also like to see gun owners more liable for things that happen with their firearms. If my 8 year old gets ahold of my pistol, and either shoots himself or his sister by accident, I should go to jail for negligence, possibly manslaughter. He shoots up his 3rd grade classroom, I should be held as an accomplice. That will spur responsible ownership. Those are decent starting grounds for discussion.
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Most people in the USA aren't gun owners, and are happier than you with the idea of licensing and restrictions.
But our government is supposed to protect minority's rights too.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.
That's two different things though - natural rights were a cutting edge idea, but they had been espoused by a number of philosophers at the time and many of them did not use a religious basis for them (Hobbes is the first that comes to mind).
Atheists still have rights in the US, in case you haven't noticed.
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.
The Second Amendment wasn't around when your country was founded, and if it were really handed down by divine decree it'd be unconstitutional because the First Amendment would prevent the State from implementing it.
Plus, the Declaration of Independence decrees that everyone is entitled to the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", except these obviously aren't inalienable because the State can take away both your life and your liberty, making these two rights not inalienable by definition.
You're making the argument that I pointed out was completely crazy in the first place. I reiterate: the idea that the right to bear arms is divinely mandated and thus sacrosanct is irrelevant, because you've decided that other inalienable rights are, in fact, alienable. Either you'd have to change this precedence, making society fall apart in the process, or you'd have to accept that your argument is bollocks.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence was indeed very forward-thinking. In 1776. It's 2018 now though. Societal context has changed.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
Why not both/all of them? Joke aside, I think I misjudged the size of the US population. That being said, I would never pick up a lotto ball if winning it meant my kid gets to die, even if the odds were one in a billion.
Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?
I'm 100% not trolling by the way, simply trying to grasp the magnitude.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms? Rights are nice and great, but a school is not a place where it should ever invite the possibility of a shooting in my understanding (I would think of a range from a bank to the battlefield would be more appropriate). In my head it's the same old argument with the "drive slower" crowd: Other people make mistakes, so drive slow even if you don't. Similarly, other people might be irresponsible with their guns even if you are not. For those of you who have both a kid and your guns, would you lock the guns away/get rid of them completely if that meant that your kid gets to go to school safely every day?
The expectations are that schools should be safe. 100% agree. But you can't legislate safety. Did you know in the US we had 22 school bombings in 2016? 9 of those were classified as explosive IED. But that didn't make nation news because there is no anti bomb agenda in the US. .
Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.
You can perfectly waive your right to privacy for example when you apply for a government security clearance. All it takes is a carefully worded statement signed in good faith.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
That's how it works here. If you want a gun license you agree to potential random no-notice house visits to check that the weapon is secured appropriately, as part of the terms of the license is that it's secured in a locked hidden cabinet when not in use.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it was partially the reason I didn't renew mine - I don't want them seeing what else is in the cupboard
That is all sorts of messed up.
In order for me to practice one constitutional right you are saying I should have to totally give up another.
Don't you see how pants on head stupid and dangerous this is?
You sure you aren't wearing a hat of +5 Hyperbole? You pretty consistently pick up a point and take off into the boonies with it.
Herzlos was stating who it works where they are located, and that seems pretty reasonable. It's not "pants on head stupid". It works for them.
What is "pants on head stupid" is posters claiming the right will go full on Waco to prevent a legal government authority from ensuring their precious One Ring, er, guns are safely stored according to the law.
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.
Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?
My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
429 bombings in the US in 2016, out something like 1600 explosive events, usually accidental. Bombings are not accidental and those 429 were not hoaxs or scares. The bombs may not have gone off in that statistic I believe.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.
Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?
My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.
And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
Why not both/all of them? Joke aside, I think I misjudged the size of the US population. That being said, I would never pick up a lotto ball if winning it meant my kid gets to die, even if the odds were one in a billion.
Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?
I'm 100% not trolling by the way, simply trying to grasp the magnitude.
I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Lost part of that response. The problem is that as long as Johnny wants to kill your kid, your child isn't safe. Little johnny has been taught that guns are the coolest way to kill your kid, and maybe they are. But take them out of the equation does not guarantee safety.
Would Johnny be taught that guns are cool if guns were not around to confirm said claim though?
My problem with firearms is that they don't serve any other purpose. Sure Johnny could bring the kitchen knife to school and go ballistic, but the kitchen knife was there to cut bread and steaks. But with firearms, what would the secondary/other use be? Hunting comes to mind, but you can do that with lead/spread cells and I don't think those are lethal to anything larger than a duck. Bullet firearms though? What would the purpose be?
Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.
In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).
I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.
The gun store keeps the file from the purchase (buyers name, general info, and the guns serial #) on hand. If the gun turns up anywhere, the ATF can pull the serial number to find out where it was manufacored, what store it was sold to, who they sold it to, and so on and so on. We don't have a registry, but as long as all transfers care done over the table, the feds can follow the paper trail to find out who is supposed to own that particular gun.
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?
If you have a permit you had to go through all of that process to get the permit. If you don't have a permit they have to do a background check and a 3 day waiting period and you have to be 21 i believe in the state of Florida for a handgun. Rifles and shotguns have no restrictions though I don't think - you can just walk out with those with no waiting period.
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?
There is no national registration or licensing except for specific NFA items like short barreled rifles, suppressors and fully automatic weapons. Most states have no firearm registry at all and some states have very limited and specific registries that account for a small percentage of the guns owned in that state. In my state I don't need any license to own firearms just a license to carry one concealed, which I have and do. No state requires psychological profiling, some states require training classes prior to issuing a concealed carry permit and some only require that you pass the background check. The concealed carry permit has to be renewed every 5 years in my state but that time period can vary state to state.
Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.
In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).
I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.
Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.
I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.
But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?
Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?
You can perfectly waive your right to privacy for example when you apply for a government security clearance. All it takes is a carefully worded statement signed in good faith.
True. But while for example you can waive your right to a trial by jury, you can't waive your rights t be judged in a court of law. Or can you? Now with the war on terrorism you might be able to get yourself classified as an enemy combatant. Hmmmmm
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?
If you have a permit you had to go through all of that process to get the permit. If you don't have a permit they have to do a background check and a 3 day waiting period and you have to be 21 i believe in the state of Florida for a handgun. Rifles and shotguns have no restrictions though I don't think - you can just walk out with those with no waiting period.
Florida is a shall issue state. If you want a concealed carry permit you turn in your application and if you pass your background check you get your concealed carry permit. You are not psychologically profiled and you are not required to undergo any training or instruction. You have to be 21, fill out the application, pay the $102 fee, pass the background check and you get your concealed carry license in about 90 days.
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.
And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.
My government can do that already. If they want into your house for a good reason. They have that power. Your government can just come in whenever it wants. It's just a needless violation of privacy. Not to mention probably totally ineffective. Can't you just pretend to not be home? They can't break your door down can they? Or look out the window and see a cop car - then properly store your guns then answer the door.
Liscencing and registration is a huge no from most gun owners, myself included. Cops here are known for shooting and using excessive force on unarmed people who "might" have a weapon. I don't need to get shot because the cops look me up and it turns out I own a couple of guns.
So worst case scenario things remain like they are now in which cops presume everyone is armed and act accordingly? Especially if you're extra tanned?
Every effective-ish gun policy hinges on registration and monitoring. Guns, gun owners and ammo. There's just no way around it.
Wait, guns are not even registered? How are you allowed to walk out the store after purchasing? Also no licensing? No psychological profiling? Periodical evaluations for renewal?
Correct.
Without inserting any commentary, here is the process for buying a firearm from in the US.
Assuming the weapon is not an NFA item (stuff like pen-guns, machineguns, rocket launchers, etc, though they are legal they have more paperwork and process), there are two options.
If you're buying a gun from a private person in the same state, you give them cash and they give you the gun. That's all there is to it.
If you want a new gun (or anything from an outfit or individual that sells guns for profit and not just personal use/collection) you walk into a gun store licensed as an FFL (federal firearms licensee).
Then, you choose a gun to purchase and fill out a form 4473.
On this form, you provide your residence and name and answer a series of questions that confirm you are not a prohibited person (e.g. you are not a felon, or fugitive from justice, etc if you intentionally lie on this form, this is what gets you sent to prison, its perjury to lie on it).
You then give the completed 4473 to store, and then they send off a background check request (which they also charge you for). This varies a bit, but usually within 10-30 mins it comes back.
If approved, the store completes the sale and you walk out with a gun and thats that.
The store keeps the 4473 record for X number of years for the ATF to review if they need.
If you want to buy a gun from another state (say you found something cool on craigslist or gunbroker.com or want that super rare luger that is only available from one place 2000 miles away) regardless of the source, it must be transferred from an FFL in the originating state to an FFL in the receiving state, and from there it goes throgh the whole above 4473/background check process.
Individual states have more regulations and restrictions, but federally, and for the bulk of the population, the above is how this all works.
Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.
In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).
I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.
Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.
I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.
But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?
Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?
I keep my guns at my residence because they're my property so I keep them with me. I've had to put down animals in our yard, rabid raccoons, snakes in the chicken coop, possums under the deck etc. the process is me selecting which gun is appropriate to use, killing the animal and burying it in my yard. No authorities ever get involved. Some of my neighbors have enough land to target shoot or hunt on their property so gun shots are not an uncommon sound throughout the week.
I want everybody else to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. We all get the presumption of innocence, if somebody else wants to own firearms I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do so responsibly until their actions prove otherwise. I have a lot of friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that own guns, they're all nice people them owning firearms doesn't bother me at all. I'm not going to assume the worst about somebody just for the sake of doing so.
On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.
Your comment gave me more food for thought though. Is there any study/survey on the effectiveness of owning firearms as a deterrent? ie is there a list of successful robbery/break+enter preventions by virtue of using your firearms to protect oneself? Is this a thing that actually happens?
Yes it does happen, yes there are studies on it, but there are no firm conclusions on any of it, as is tradition
Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.
In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).
I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.
Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.
I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.
But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?
Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?
If you ask most gun owners what their main use for their guns is. I think most will say home defense almost all the rest will say hunting. Gun can't protect your home if it's at the gun range.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.
Well, unless it is about arbitration..... full circle?
Insurgency Walker wrote: On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.
Given that the British will have a hard time even leaving their island in a couple of years, I would say you are safe in that front
I want everybody else to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. We all get the presumption of innocence, if somebody else wants to own firearms I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do so responsibly until their actions prove otherwise. I have a lot of friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that own guns, they're all nice people them owning firearms doesn't bother me at all. I'm not going to assume the worst about somebody just for the sake of doing so.
It's not about assuming the worst, it's about taking safety measures. I can have all the faith in the world that the rottweilers around the city where I leave will be raised correctly and will be disciplined. I will still expect from their owners to have them leashed while on the public road. It's not about me assuming the worst of the rottweiler owners, it's about playing safe in advance so we don't have to regret later.
If you ask most gun owners what their main use for their guns is. I think most will say home defense almost all the rest will say hunting. Gun can't protect your home if it's at the gun range.
This is a big difference right there. Majority of legal gun owners in the UK would be farmers, gamekeepers, range shooters, "landed gentry" and similar groups. Ergo it is either a hobby item or its a functional tool of work. Even small livestock keepers might own a firearm for dispatch of rats or sick stock (although many a farmer might call in a professional for a clean single shot kill; and might otherwise have a shotgun for pest control).
That said for all those other uses having the gun on-site is important for those users; however in the UK they are all subject to random potential searches by the police to ensure that their weapons and ammunition are kept in safe conditions. That said I've honestly no idea how common those random searches are and I would highly suspect that most typical firearms owners only get inspected when they are starting out (ensuring compliance) and at any point their licence changes state or is renewed/ended.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
Insurgency Walker wrote: On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.
Given that the British will have a hard time even leaving their island in a couple of years, I would say you are safe in that front
I want everybody else to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. We all get the presumption of innocence, if somebody else wants to own firearms I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do so responsibly until their actions prove otherwise. I have a lot of friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that own guns, they're all nice people them owning firearms doesn't bother me at all. I'm not going to assume the worst about somebody just for the sake of doing so.
It's not about assuming the worst, it's about taking safety measures. I can have all the faith in the world that the rottweilers around the city where I leave will be raised correctly and will be disciplined. I will still expect from their owners to have them leashed while on the public road. It's not about me assuming the worst of the rottweiler owners, it's about playing safe in advance so we don't have to regret later.
Do you want to own dogs? Do you want other citizens in your country to be able to own dogs? If you want to get a dog can you simply buy whatever breed of dog you want? Do you believe that the majority of dog owners are responsible dog owners? Does your government need to strictly regulate dog ownership in an effort to eliminate anyone being victimized by dog attacks?
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.
The Second Amendment wasn't around when your country was founded, and if it were really handed down by divine decree it'd be unconstitutional because the First Amendment would prevent the State from implementing it.
Plus, the Declaration of Independence decrees that everyone is entitled to the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", except these obviously aren't inalienable because the State can take away both your life and your liberty, making these two rights not inalienable by definition.
You're making the argument that I pointed out was completely crazy in the first place. I reiterate: the idea that the right to bear arms is divinely mandated and thus sacrosanct is irrelevant, because you've decided that other inalienable rights are, in fact, alienable. Either you'd have to change this precedence, making society fall apart in the process, or you'd have to accept that your argument is bollocks.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence was indeed very forward-thinking. In 1776. It's 2018 now though. Societal context has changed.
Thats why I used the term " higher power". If you believe individual people are the highest power than fine. Our government doesn't get to capriciously curtail those rights. When a government does its called tyranny. Also, its the right t self defense. Life and liberty require the ability to defend oneself. I choose the best tools available.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
In a sense you arent wrong based strictly off the odds, and thats fair to point out, but most of these are prohibitions against certain kinds of uses and how organizations managing people and things have to conduct themselves, as opposed to controlling ownership of personal items based off potential intentional misuse.
Likewise, lets be real, how effective and useful do most people think airport security is?
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
It's pretty hard not to agree with the argument actually. If you goal is to save lives - your efforts should be devoted to saving the most lives possible. Heart disease is the leading killer among Americans - this is hugely influenced by diet. I don't see any concerted effort in shutting down fast food restaurants and providing real alternative (things that might actually make a difference). Cigarettes are still legal for some reason even though in a 10 day period they kill more than guns being used in crimes in a whole year in the US (which most probably could have just used another weapon instead) second hand smoke kills 3 times as many as guns per year. This is real perspective. These are things that are actually dangerous on 1 side (that we can actually do something about) and on the other hand you have fear-mongering.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Part of the argument with the right to doctor assisted end of life is that people could be coerced into such a thing. If evidence is given unlawfully to the police the courts can, and do, throw it out. You can't lawfully sell yourself into slavery. You can't waive your right to a safe workplace. Your work boss can make you sign all sorts of crazy unlawful things, but the court will not honor those contracts.
Well, unless it is about arbitration..... full circle?
The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't give up basic rights even if an employer makes you sign a paper. Lots of businesses found out the hard way that employees could not waive the right to a break and even in arbitration results are overturned on appeal.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.
And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.
My government can do that already. If they want into your house for a good reason.
And making your guns are properly stored is a good reason. That's the compromise you take with society when you own a gun.
Don't forget that the UK and USA also stalk/hunt deer and that the USA also has wolves, coyotes, bears and other species. Guns are also used for dispatch of animals in pain or as an option for putting an animal down (as opposed to lethal injection) should the animal be suffering/beyond medical help/beyond the ability for any to afford medical help.
In addition shooting, eg at a range, is a hobby for many. A skill just like historical re-enactment people use swords; or bows and arrows or spears (or javelins which are used at the Olympics).
I can well see a desire to own and make use of guns within a hobby interest without any intention of using them to kill. Guns are a device and a machine like any other; they've got a variety of uses of which killing is only one.
Then why not keep your gun at the shooting range and go whenever you want and enjoy? Also, I'm pretty sure if animals need to be put down with guns, strict protocols are applied and a gun that is taken out of a registered, sealed vault is used, and the user is known and the reason is explained, and the gun returns to its place after shooting. This is what gun control is about, not taking away your favorite stuff, but making its use sensible and expected. Same way you lock the drawer with the acids and the bleach, lest your toddler swallows a bottle for fun.
I own several firearms and have children in my family. I'm happy to have both and plan on always having both. I don't need a justification for having firearms just like I don't need a justification for having kids or a justification for exercising any other actions I'm free to take. You're creating a false choice between guns or safety when I'm perfectly capable of enjoying both. I trust myself with my firearms and I trust my family with my firearms therefore my kids schools are already as safe as they could be from my firearms. Giving up my firearms doesn't guarantee my kids safety and owning my firearms doesn't guarantee they'll be harmed so my choice is to own guns and I don't want the state to take that choice away from me.
But what about the other guy's guns? Who happens to be irresponsible and have his guns laying around, not teaching his children the appropriate discipline etc? and then those kids go to the same school as yours?
Also, it's not about guaranteeing. No measure will yield 100% perfect results. But when children safety is on the table, shouldn't you use any and all measure to make it as safe as possible?
If you ask most gun owners what their main use for their guns is. I think most will say home defense almost all the rest will say hunting. Gun can't protect your home if it's at the gun range.
Guns for personal protection come with totally different requirements. And yes, you can keep them at home and carry them concealed.
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Here is the problem with your logic.
The fact that I own guns had zero relevance on the events of the school shooting in Santa Fe/Parkland/Etc... So under what moral or ethical pretext can you justify punishing and restricting my possession of firearms because someone else committed a crime with them?
There isn't a choice where we either can have guns OR have safe schools. The problem is focusing on the tools used to commit crimes instead of the actual root cause of the crime.
This kid didn't shoot up his school because he had access to guns. He shot up his school because he was bullied. Taking away the guns still leaves you the main problem, a bullied kid who wants to lash out at others, and on top of that you've infringed on literally everyone's constitutional right to bear arms. Its a non-solution that just causes more harm than it prevents. What would fix the problem would be more comprehensive anti-bullying campaigns in schools.
Remember the Parkland shooter? People joked about how he was gonna be the kid to shoot up the school, to his face. He was ruthlessly bullied. That doesn't excuse his actions, but it does show a pattern that these issues are caused by a toxic culture in schools where the odd balls get ostracized.
Blaming guns is ultimately silly. If someone gets drunk and runs someone over with a car, you don't blame the car, and we already tried banning alcohol once. Didn't work so great. If someone stabs a person in a fit of rage, we don't see calls for limiting the types of knives people can have, but if the same happens with a gun the gun gets blamed... Guns are just inanimate hunks of metal. They need a person to pick it up and use it. Blame the person, not the tool.
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.
And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.
My government can do that already. If they want into your house for a good reason.
And making your guns are properly stored is a good reason. That's the compromise you take with society when you own a gun.
Nope. Having weapons is a constitutional right here. Practicing that right does not give the government the authority to get up in my business and violate the 4th amendment.
Insurgency Walker wrote: On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.
Given that the British will have a hard time even leaving their island in a couple of years, I would say you are safe in that front
I want everybody else to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. We all get the presumption of innocence, if somebody else wants to own firearms I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do so responsibly until their actions prove otherwise. I have a lot of friends, family, coworkers and neighbors that own guns, they're all nice people them owning firearms doesn't bother me at all. I'm not going to assume the worst about somebody just for the sake of doing so.
It's not about assuming the worst, it's about taking safety measures. I can have all the faith in the world that the rottweilers around the city where I leave will be raised correctly and will be disciplined. I will still expect from their owners to have them leashed while on the public road. It's not about me assuming the worst of the rottweiler owners, it's about playing safe in advance so we don't have to regret later.
Do you want to own dogs? Do you want other citizens in your country to be able to own dogs? If you want to get a dog can you simply buy whatever breed of dog you want? Do you believe that the majority of dog owners are responsible dog owners? Does your government need to strictly regulate dog ownership in an effort to eliminate anyone being victimized by dog attacks?
I want everyone to be able to have as many dogs as they can handle. Personally I would not own one, it would make for too much stress to constantly keep my mind on a potentially dangerous dog being under my responsibility. But everyone should have any number of dogs they want. From labs to rottweilers, it matters me none. And they should be very very free to handle them any way they like while inside their property. When they come out of their property and into the public road (=school) where my kid is though, their dog will be on a leash and this is non negotiable. Furthermore, if they do not comply, I will call the police and have them either put the leash on or get arrested (themselves, not the dog). Of course there are a lot of dog parks (= shooting ranges) in my hometown, where my dog-loving neighbours can go ahead and let their dogs free and running wild to their hearts content, all while behind protective walls that warrant that I don't get bitten in the ass.
Oh and the moment it gets proved that they can't handle their dog, and said dog actually bites my child, I want the dog put down and said dog owner held directly responsible and in the very least never ever be allowed to own a dog ever again. And I want the city to enforce mandatory leash checks on every dog owner. Not because I am butthurt, but because if we don't do it then more kids will get bitten.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Intelligence and enlightened self interest. The police are not there to help you.
Grey Templar wrote: [ This kid didn't shoot up his school because he had access to guns. He shot up his school because he was bullied. Taking away the guns still leaves you the main problem, a bullied kid who wants to lash out at others, and on top of that you've infringed on literally everyone's constitutional right to bear arms. Its a non-solution that just causes more harm than it prevents. What would fix the problem would be more comprehensive anti-bullying campaigns in schools.
He shot up his school because he was able to shoot up his school thanks to someone in his home having firearms.
Also, there's been nothing outside of the father(whose guns were the ones used in the shooting) suggesting that the Santa Fe shooter was "bullied".
Remember the Parkland shooter? People joked about how he was gonna be the kid to shoot up the school, to his face. He was ruthlessly bullied. That doesn't excuse his actions, but it does show a pattern that these issues are caused by a toxic culture in schools where the odd balls get ostracized.
Sure seems like an attempt to excuse his actions. Plenty of people get bullied and don't shoot up schools.
Blaming guns is ultimately silly. If someone gets drunk and runs someone over with a car, you don't blame the car, and we already tried banning alcohol once. Didn't work so great. If someone stabs a person in a fit of rage, we don't see calls for limiting the types of knives people can have, but if the same happens with a gun the gun gets blamed... Guns are just inanimate hunks of metal. They need a person to pick it up and use it. Blame the person, not the tool.
We've seen limitations on "the type of knives" people can have. We see people having their ability to drive removed for too many traffic violations.
But for whatever reason, these "inanimate hunks of metal" designed to do nothing but kill are viewed with some kind of aura where "you can't blame them!".
No it is stupid - they are just desensitized by it - they think it's perfectly normal to have the government coming into your house and having a look around. The state having to come into my home for any reason other than because I have committed a serious crime - is completely unacceptable.
It's not perfectly normal, it's actually extremely rare unless there's a very good reason for it. Social contract again, I won't go there if I don't have a reason to, but if I have a reason to, I'm going to do it.
And, seriously, if the government has a good reason to go there your rights aren't worth feth.
My government can do that already. If they want into your house for a good reason.
And making your guns are properly stored is a good reason. That's the compromise you take with society when you own a gun.
Nope. Having weapons is a constitutional right here. Practicing that right does not give the government the authority to get up in my business and violate the 4th amendment.
The Fourth Amendment relates to unreasonable "searches and seizures". If as part of the process to own a firearm one had to submit to a randomly performed, targeted in-home check to ensure your firearms were stored and secured properly--there'd be no grounds for anyone to claim it's "unreasonable".
Insurgency Walker wrote: On the subject of why we keep firearms at home. Our revolutionary war started when the British came to snag some trouble makers and seize the militias arms, or maybe at least powder and ammo from a town cache.
Sometimes some really anti-gun politician here suggests that same idea, storing your guns at the range or gun club. Not one of them ever considers that law-abiding gun owners already keep their guns safe - and spread out over the many homes where someone owns a gun. The British Crown (or Swedish Crown, or Czar Putin for that matter) is the least of my concerns with the idea.
Heavy criminals wanting guns, however, would be happy to have a few central locations to loot instead of relying on buying stuff once in a while from this and that petty burglar who got lucky and stole a random gun. Hmm, the choice between a few shotguns, a moose rifle and whatever ammo there was or the pistol shooting club's nice concealable handguns? Gun ranges are usually also a bit out of the way so the noise doesn't disturb residential areas, which means the response to any burglar alarm would take a lot of time. These places would have to be virtual bunkers, possibly with 24/7 armed guards.
Otherwise no one's inspected the gun safe in my home, ever, and it's been there for thirty years. The police have limited resources and aren't going to bother random gun owners unless there's cause, like one getting repeatedly busted for drugs or picking fights drunk. Or heaven forbid threatening to kill people (with or without a gun on him). Wouldn't death threats also be grounds for US police to straight-out confiscate your guns for a while?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Intelligence and enlightened self interest. The police are not there to help you.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
.... and I agree. Guns should still be available, but with a "changed receipe" for how you store or procure them. They are still easily accessible with back ground checks and liability insurance requirements for ownership. Then, we can regulate businesses (such as Insurance companies, gun shops, and gun show organizers) to enforce these items. So, Guns really are no different from things we all ready regulate for safety reasons.
.... except we choose to put them in some special "class" for .... reasons?
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Intelligence and enlightened self interest. The police are not there to help you.
^^^^
I cannot agree with this enough.
In my personal experience, and shooting gets you a lot of time next to cops doing their mandatory proficiency, you really want to help them. Being extra nice to public servants is free for the most part and gets you a lot of goodwill you might want to use later on.
They might not be there to help you as an individual, but they're part of a system that tries to make sure everything you benefit from in society works as intended.
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
Well I hate to let the cat out of the bag, but it's what this country was founded on. The Declaration of Independence which was the most crazy forward thinking documented of its time.
The Second Amendment wasn't around when your country was founded, and if it were really handed down by divine decree it'd be unconstitutional because the First Amendment would prevent the State from implementing it.
Plus, the Declaration of Independence decrees that everyone is entitled to the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", except these obviously aren't inalienable because the State can take away both your life and your liberty, making these two rights not inalienable by definition.
You're making the argument that I pointed out was completely crazy in the first place. I reiterate: the idea that the right to bear arms is divinely mandated and thus sacrosanct is irrelevant, because you've decided that other inalienable rights are, in fact, alienable. Either you'd have to change this precedence, making society fall apart in the process, or you'd have to accept that your argument is bollocks.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence was indeed very forward-thinking. In 1776. It's 2018 now though. Societal context has changed.
Thats why I used the term " higher power". If you believe individual people are the highest power than fine. Our government doesn't get to capriciously curtail those rights. When a government does its called tyranny. Also, its the right t self defense. Life and liberty require the ability to defend oneself. I choose the best tools available.
You didn't use the term "higher power", you used the term "divine". It's right there in the quote.
If government doesn't "get to capriciously curtail those rights", why is it allowed to deprive you of your life or your liberty, or stop you when you go around pursuing Happiness by strangling toddlers? If a right can be taken away in certain situations it by definition isn't inalienable. The right to bear arms can be taken away in certain circumstances (i.e. if you're a felon) ergo it is not inalienable. This isn't something that is up for debate, it is a matter of objective definition.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, let me get this straight. Cops can stalk people by following them. They can illegally pull me over. But they cannot make sure a gun has a lock on it or it is secured properly in a case/locker because that would be violating rights?
Yep - how are they getting into the house to make the check? They can not enter without probable cause - just as they can't search your car without probable cause.
You are essentially waiving that right as soon as you are a legal gun owner. That's just the way it works just about everywhere else.
In America their are basic rights you can't even waive away.
Something prohibits you from saying "yes officer please come in"?
Intelligence and enlightened self interest. The police are not there to help you.
^^^^
I cannot agree with this enough.
In my personal experience, and shooting gets you a lot of time next to cops doing their mandatory proficiency, you really want to help them. Being extra nice to public servants is free for the most part and gets you a lot of goodwill you might want to use later on.
They might not be there to help you as an individual, but they're part of a system that tries to make sure everything you benefit from in society works as intended.
If the police ever show up at my home and nobody in my family called them and they don't have a warrant I'll politely tell them that no they can't come in and to please leave my property.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
.... and I agree. Guns should still be available, but with a "changed receipe" for how you store or procure them. They are still easily accessible with back ground checks and liability insurance requirements for ownership. Then, we can regulate businesses (such as Insurance companies, gun shops, and gun show organizers) to enforce these items. So, Guns really are no different from things we all ready regulate for safety reasons.
.... except we choose to put them in some special "class" for .... reasons?
What new procurement or storage methods do you want to see implemented and how would they mitigate crimes committed with guns? Most states already have safe storage laws for gun ownership. Why did the thread go off on the tangent of storage anyway? Safely secured doesn't mean that the owner is the only one that can access them, the Santa Fe shooting wasn't a result of improper storage. When I'm not using, cleaning or carrying any of my guns they're locked up in the safe but I'm not the only one that can open the safe, my wife and our older kids all know how to open it too. Proper storage means not doing things like leaving a pistol in the kids' Lego bin or tossing it under the front seat on my way to the range or leaving rifles laying out on the coffee table. Having your shotgun and revolver locked up but having your 17 year old son know the combination or know where you keep the key doesn't violate any secure storage laws.
Secure storage laws also don't automatically give police probably cause to search your house for unsecured guns. We already have a ton of laws that people could potentially be violating in their homes yet the police can't just show up at your door and enter your house against your wishes to search for potential illegal activity without a warrant or probable cause. The fact that it is possible that I am violating a law inside my house does not mean there is probable cause for the police to believe I am actively violating a law inside my house.
Even if somehow for some reason gun storage laws were the one exception allowed under the 4th amendment before any inspections could even take place we'd first need to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry which would require state laws to be passed and that's going to be difficult to do in more than a few states and be enforced by local and state law enforcement which will be a tremendous strain on resources.
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
That would be people who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Relatives or other residents of the home who can lawfully possess or operate firearms could still legally access the firearms so what mass shooting would a federal secure storage gun law, even if such a thing were constitutional and passed by Congress, have stopped?
In my personal experience, and shooting gets you a lot of time next to cops doing their mandatory proficiency, you really want to help them. Being extra nice to public servants is free for the most part and gets you a lot of goodwill you might want to use later on.
They might not be there to help you as an individual, but they're part of a system that tries to make sure everything you benefit from in society works as intended.
Police absolutely have an important role to play in society.
However, particularly under the legal and professional framework in the US that surrounds police, as an individual, you have every incentive to not want to be anywhere near the police and to keep interactions, even friendly ones, to an absolute minimum.
They have no duty to protect or assist you. They can and will routinely lie to you (thats basic police work and how they usually get confessions) but lying to them is a crime. They are not required to know the law in their enforcement of it, and their ignorance of it is legally shielded, while your ignorance of the law is no defense in court. If they do something illegal they are unlikely to be held accountable without significant evidence and public pressure, but even passive resistance on my part is a crime. Their entire job is to look for, and be a professional witness to, violations of the law, even if unrelated to any whatever their immediate task was. There is a reason every lawyer and veteran cop will tell you "dont talk", no matter how trivial you think a statement may be. Even when it comes to firearms, they can and do get away with shoots that would send anyone without a badge to jail in a heartbeat and training is heavily based around paramount officer safety at all costs that frees them to shoot at the mere apprehension of a firearm being drawn.
With such considerations in mind, as a practical matter, as an individual citizen, you have no incentive to want anything to do with the police, you want them as far away as possible. There is no upside to you interacting with them, but lots of risk.
Having them come into my home for inspections of firearms storage? I cannot see any possible positive outcome even if I dont believe Ive done anything wrong.
Ok, to soon, to soon.
