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.

 Alfndrate wrote:

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

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

When I say killers, I refer to those who willingly murder other humans. Not including those who kill in self defence. Soldiers are not included also, unless they join with the intent that they can kill people.

While there may be a correlation discovered between the violent games and killing, I again believe this is due to their nature. They feel the desire to kill, and these video games appeal to their nature. The games just reveal what's already there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

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

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

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

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

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

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

HAHAHAHA! It's my job to find the facts you're using for your argument?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

So Whembly is your source?

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

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

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

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

So Whembly is your source?

Woah... o.O

Since when did I level up?

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

That is why you keep that in the RV or under the laundry

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

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

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

 Kanluwen wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

Without probable cause that is.

Bolded the important bit.

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

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

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

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

But I would not support a law letting the cops into my house "just to check" my guns.

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

Well if you don't want me to ask where you got a certain statistic don't try to use that statistic to further your arguments.

 Seaward wrote:

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

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

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

No.

There is more than a cosmetic difference between a double-barrelled shotgun and a SPAS-12.

That apart, if the difference was no more than cosmetic, why would anyone care about it?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

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

 whembly wrote:

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

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

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

I don't think it's simply a double-standard with prosecuting accidental gun wounds/deaths. I think it is under reported as a whole, including "accidental firearms discharges".
Add to it that there is such a broad spectrum of potential charges (and the fact that most prosecutors will go for the "highest possible charge") it makes it a difficult subject to readily find literature on.

 whembly wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

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

So Whembly is your source?

Woah... o.O

Since when did I level up?

Today! Congratulations! There's cake in the lobby

 d-usa wrote:

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

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

I'd support a law that let the cops check out "these guns"

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

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

Or, you know, allow a non-government agency, such as certified gun-safe-fitters inspect and certify your gun storage, same as certified gas fitters certify your gas boiler is safe, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

in light of the NSA wiretapping EVERYTHING not seeing a whole lot of difference at this point. Better uniforms? Better pension plan?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The Stazi reference is a nonsensical reference typical to your "If I can't debate them, I'll try to discredit them" approach.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

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

No, it can't actually. The Constitution is not a mere law boyo.
Unless you're saying chuck the Constitution, then its Go Time isn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

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

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

No they can't...

Sure they can.

Is it likely to happen? No.

NO they can't.
Did you not take US government or anything?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only if it is run by an entity other than the NRA.

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

Is it also the name of a popular breakfast cereal?

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

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

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

in his defense he's British. He's not required to have knowledge of the US Federal system, unlike Kanluwen.

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

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

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

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

There is in some states, usually those that have problems with meth.

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

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

The problem is that in many of these instances where "violent video games" are blamed--there is little to no evidence beyond the say-so of the killers or a correlation jumped to by the NRA and media outlets.

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 .

Some states require it. Federal law may require it now too, but don't quote me on that.
Gun locks are crap except on long guns, and even then crap.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

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

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

in his defense he's British. He's not required to have knowledge of the US Federal system, unlike Kanluwen.

Sorry, I shouldn't have qouted him, I should have qouted Kanluwen.

I wasn't trying to insult you Silver, I have no more expectation about you having knowledge of the in's and out's of our governmental system then you have of myself knowing yours.

 Frazzled wrote:
in his defense he's British. He's not required to have knowledge of the US Federal system, unlike Kanluwen.

The constitution is written law, just like any other writte law. It may have greater checks in place to any alteration or infringement , but it can still be altered, broken or ignored by your government. Again, such sweeping changes as suggested in the posts you quoted are staggeringly unlikely to happen (or I guess you will just ship people off to be tortured in 3rd party countries, and only ignore all privicy laws in secret, etc ), but just "becase constitution" isn't a magical defence.