Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 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.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 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?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


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.

 Easy E wrote:

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?

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 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.

 Easy E wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 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/

Can't say I'm religious, but if government is the highest power I have one word.

TRUMP

I'm not letting that tool decide what my rights are.
Feth that

 Xenomancers wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

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.

topaxygouroun i wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, you don't understand, you're not FREE, man!

You know this line takes a whole new meaning when you imagine The Dude from the Big Lebowski saying it...

Prestor Jon wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 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.

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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!".

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

 Frazzled wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 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?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:


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.

jouso wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.

 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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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.

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 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.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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.

Yeah, and those locked up guns are properly stored.

The gun in a shoebox under the bed that is then used by a six year old to kill a four year old is not.


edit: syntax

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 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?

jouso wrote:

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.