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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

And can we get back to the bad parenting?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ah... I gotcha.

Yes, it can be amended.

Easily? No... and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

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

Deal with it.

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there are criminal charges to be pressed, by all means do it.

But we don't need to put special laws in place specifically for accidental death by firearms involving children. The current laws are sufficient.

Criminal Negligence should be more than sufficient to cover these situation. I wouldn't doubt charges would be pressed if the lady had survived the encounter in this case. But as she is dead nothing can be done.

If the boy could get the gun there is a problem there before anything else.

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

Besides, odds are he would've done it later in life, and be put into a costly trial for someone. Killers are born, not raised IMO. At least now he has no criminal record, and won't do it later on. Hopefully.

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

Such as what? I'm going by UK law here as I'm not up on all US law - Cars kill a lot of people; they have to be insured, have a valid MOT and registration, you can't be using a phone and driving, you must be wearing a seatbelt, you have to be licenced to drive, etc. There are cameras and mobile police check points which run your registration and (possibly?) tax disc to ensure that your car fill all these criteria. If it comes back that your car is missing one of those things, or it looks like your car is in a dangerous state of repair, or you are driving dangerously or you can't produce a licence the police will pull you over for a closer look, send you a fine, or haul you in, depending on what it is they find wrong.

Alcohol - plenty of alcohol related deaths and injuries aren't there? Illegal to sell to people below a certain age, age checks in place (usually if you look under 21, but some places take it up to 35 just to make sure), police run checks to make sure places request ID, stiff fines etc in place. Also plenty of places with alcohol bans in place so you cannot consume alcohol, as well as some places serving alcohol not allowing children to come in full stop. In the UK it is illegal to give alcohol to children under 5. Police able to stop you in the street if you are behaving drunkenly.

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

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

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

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is always the link of people who have shot people having access to firearms...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

As far as gun safety Is concerned:

I think I'm fairly well known to be in support of improving existing gun laws and even passing some new ones that are sensible. I'm never going to be in favor of letting the police enter my home "just to check things", they better have a warrant before they come on in.

Now I might support a law saying "you have to provide proof that you own a gun safe/locker/box that can hold this weapon" before you purchase it, then I would be more agreeable. Of course there is no guarantee that you will lock the weapon up, but it would be another layer of safety.

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

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

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

And the reason he shouldn't have it is because its rated 18 for adult content including swearing a crime which someone up top decided was unsuitable for children.

Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

Stop making sense!

Violent video games only have an impact on the easily impressionable. These are people that can either dedicate a lot of time to the violent games, those that have a problem in their real life (occasionally mentally based) and form an unhealthy connection with the game where they start to lose that clear distinction between reality and gaming, and those that at an impressionable age, ya know 13 or younger. Though these ratings are in place to try and stem these things, it's a shame no one follows the ESRB.

Also I wonder if we've heard from Jack Thompson on this.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

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

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

HUGE difference between the developmental difference between an 8 year old and a tween, huge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

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

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

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

Great, when you learn the basics of "nature/nurture" I'll listen to your opinion.

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

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

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

What's to stop the police being able to obtain a warrent to check on the storage of guns anyway? Certainly I would imagine that if the law states that police can check on gun storage, the police being able to get warrents for this will be more or less a given.

A game by itself will not make people into a killer.

If that child is inundated with violent games, and raised in an environment without anything to counter act that, and maybe is mistreated, then it might have a connection.

But as far as violent games having a direct correlation with violent people, I say BS. There are too many people playing these games and nowhere near enough violence to make it true.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

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

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

Probable cause?

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

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

Most states have a "state bureau of investigation" with offices in all the major cities--it's not unreasonable to potentially have them(or a Sheriff's deputy, etc) perform the checks on police.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

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

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

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

May I see your statistics for prosecution rates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

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

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

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

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

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

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

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

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

O.o

Who's accountable for Benghazi?

So... let's back this up a bit...

I think you want to live in Illinois then... Since Illinois gun owners will have to report missing firearms to police and check the background of potential buyers. If your weapon is stolen/missing, you're required to report it to the police.