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.

 cincydooley wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


....out of context appeals to emotion

We're talking about unintentional deaths. Which are listed on that graph. Which you ignored.

Is it really such a big deal to have a law requiring guns to be in a locked cabinet when not in use by their lawful owner? There could be no requirement to have the cabinet checked, but if the gun was found to be used in a crime the owner could be liable to a significant extent if their gun was not properly stored. Obviously if it was locked and someone broke in and got the key, the owner had done their part.

This makes little to no sense.

You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.

Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.

blaktoof wrote:

You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.

Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.

Okay, so you're claiming the instance of 11 year olds committing murders with improperly secured firearms is high? Is that what you're driving at?

Unless you're honestly trying to liken this event to the murders committed with firearms in the 15-24 category?

I mean, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure nearly all of those murders committed by 15-24 year olds are performed because Pa forgot to lock up his shotgun. Couldn't possibly be gang activity or anything like that.

Unless you're advocating that gangs be held responsible for properly storing their firearms, too.

 Frazzled wrote:
You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.

You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.

And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.

You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.

And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.

You can use the same argument for absolutely anything. Courts have already ruled you need a warrant.

 CptJake wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
That pre-supposes that preventions in place for each mode of death are equally effective, and the chances of death per encounter are the same, as well as a large number of other assumptions.

Give me a break, to think you can come up with federal legislation and enforcement there of to reduce less than 50 accidental child deaths a year in a population of over 300 million people is just silly. That is the bad assumption being made in this topic.

Just pointing out the flaw in your statement and reasoning.

 CptJake wrote:
I agree. I will admit though, the fact that folks actually advocate for Federal power to increase and be that intrusive, and see it as a good/desirable thing bothers me.

I can't speak for others, but I see it as a good/desirable thing because our last mass shooting was 20 years ago, as a result of our Federal government taking it on themselves to remove guns from the hands of people who don't actually need them.


Nitpicking over which arm of the government should do it is ultimately a red herring. If it were being suggested that State governments should do the same thing, there would be just as much resistance.

How many rapes before and after?
How many home invasions before and after?
How many murders before and after?
How many attempted murders before and after?
How many batteries before and after?
How many robberies before and after?

You might not like what you find.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.

Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?

State and municipal laws requiring safe storage of firearms already exist. I'm not sure why some people in this thread seem to think they don't. There are laws that criminalize negligent behavior that allows children or other prohibited person to access firearms. They have existed for a long time. People get prosecuted when they are caught breaking them. Laws that criminalize negligent behavior don't actually pre-emptively stop people from being negligent; this is true for all such laws whether they pertain to gun storage or not. Gun storage laws are as effective at combating negligent behavior as they can be within the confines of our legal system as it currently exists.

Abstract


CONTEXT:

Since 1989, several states have passed laws that make gun owners criminally liable if someone is injured because a child gains unsupervised access to a gun. These laws are controversial, and their effect on firearm-related injuries is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine if state laws that require safe storage of firearms are associated with a reduction in child mortality due to firearms.

DESIGN:

An ecological study of firearm mortality from 1979 through 1994.

SETTING:

All 50 states and the District of Columbia.

PARTICIPANTS:

All children younger than 15 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Unintentional deaths, suicides, and homicides due to firearms.

RESULTS:

Laws that make gun owners responsible for storing firearms in a manner that makes them inaccessible to children were in effect for at least 1 year in 12 states from 1990 through 1994. Among children younger than 15 years, unintentional shooting deaths were reduced by 23% (95% confidence interval, 6%-37%) during the years covered by these laws. This estimate was based on within-state comparisons adjusted for national trends in unintentional firearm-related mortality. Gun-related homicide and suicide showed modest declines, but these were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

State safe storage laws intended to make firearms less accessible to children appear to prevent unintentional shooting deaths among children younger than 15 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9315767



28 states have child access prevention laws, 11 states have safe storage or gun lock laws, 8 states have some form of "assault weapon ban"

Definitions

Any Child Access Prevention Law?: states with laws in place designed to prevent children from accessing firearms, including laws imposing crimimal liability when a child gains access to a firearm as a result of negligant firearm storage, laws preventing people from providing firearms to minors, and safe storage requirements that apply to all firearms in the state. State definitions of "minor" may range from children under 14 to those under 18.

Any Safe Storage or Gun Lock Requirment?: any state law concerning firearm locking devices in place. Massachusetts is the only state that requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place; California, Connecticut, and New York impose gun locking requirements in certain situations. State laws may apply to cetain types of guns only, such as handguns or assault weapons, and may be required during gun sales by dealers and/or private gun sales. In five states (CA, CT, MD, MA, NY), locking devices must meet state standards, or be approved by a state agency for effectiveness.

Assault Weapons Ban?: a state law banning assault weapons, by name, or by specific features of the gun that make a gun an assault weapon. State laws also vary as to which activities are prohibited, which may include the manufacture, transporation, sale, shipping, transfer, purchase, reciept, possession, distribution, or transportation of assault weapons.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-and-children-legislation/

Text of the 2005 Federal law Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that requires all manufacturers of firearms to inlcude safety devices such as trigger locks or chamber locks with all firearms sold.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ92/html/PLAW-109publ92.htm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.

You really don't kill that protection by having gun inspections because the scope of the "search" is explicitly limited to verifying compliance with the gun storage law. The police can't show up and say "you own a gun, now we get to search your whole house and see if there's anything to charge you with", they can only go directly to the gun storage, verify that all of your registered guns are stored legally, and immediately leave. No searching your papers, no digging through your closets, etc. You're in trouble if you have obvious evidence of a crime sitting in plain sight, but TBH if you're that stupid you're not getting much sympathy from me when you're thrown in prison for it.

And, again, I'll mention the FAA "ramp check" example: the government can not search your car for drugs just because they feel like it, the government can search your plane to ensure that you're complying with FAA regulations. The scope of the search is a very important difference.

You keep citing the FAA checks and you're still wrong about why they're not a violatoin of the 4th amendment. The FAA issues you a pilot's license and as part of your qualifications for obtaining that license you consent to plane checks. State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.

The Federal govt also issues Federal Firearms Licenses and part of the qualifications for obtaining a Federal firearms license is consenting to searches of your business or private records of gun sales and purchases under that FFL. Those searches are not a violation of the 4th amendment because you have previously consented to those searches in order to obtain a license. There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

 cincydooley wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

You want to deflect away the homicide portion to unintentional deaths only, both are potential results of guns not being stored properly.

Unless you have some personal awareness regarding the OP and are completely certain the boy walking into a house to get a gun, walking back out, pointing at a girl and pulling the trigger was "unintentional" in which case please share them. Otherwise it is likely homicide related, and not unintentional.

Okay, so you're claiming the instance of 11 year olds committing murders with improperly secured firearms is high? Is that what you're driving at?

Unless you're honestly trying to liken this event to the murders committed with firearms in the 15-24 category?

I mean, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure nearly all of those murders committed by 15-24 year olds are performed because Pa forgot to lock up his shotgun. Couldn't possibly be gang activity or anything like that.

Unless you're advocating that gangs be held responsible for properly storing their firearms, too.

I am saying you can't call that "unintentional" unintentional firearm related deaths comes from unintentional discharge of the weapon, and does happen.

Its not reasonable to bring up unintentional firearm deaths in regards to the topic put up by the OP because the incident is not unintentional. I don't have any numbers on how many deaths are caused by guns being used in homicides from someone other than their owner, or unintentional deaths related to guns not being properly stored and someone other than the owner gets their hands on it. However It is disingenuous to say that gun deaths in kids is 39 because the unintentional deaths is that low. That is not a true statement. Obviously some of the unintentional gun deaths are people playing with guns and it goes off, and obviously some of the homicide deaths are kids going into their families home, getting the gun(s) from wherever they are improperly stored, and using them with intent shoot at someone. I know 15-24 is a big range but a large part of that range is not even allowed to own any type of gun, and a larger portion is not allowed to own handguns.

There are kids that have access to their parents/families guns and then use them when they should not be using that has nothing to do with "gang" activity. I am not sure how gangs are even involved in this discussion, is it because they commit crimes? An 11 year old walking into a house to get a gun with the intent of shooting someone, getting the gun, going outside, pointing at someone, and pulling the trigger with the intent to shoot someone is a crime. Yes?

Laws are laws, if anyone that has a gun should have to properly store it, that includes gang members. Perhaps gang member has gun, gets busted in house, gun is not properly stored while not in use-wanted to take selfie with gold chains and 10 100's with gun on table- so more jail time on top of jail time for anything else they may possibly have charged against them.

Whats with the gang member talk? Should everything with guns be legal unless your in a gang? A lot of crimes are committed by non gang members. In 2012 gangs committed 2,300 homicides [not all of them were gun related..]. 2013 had 11,200 gun related homicides. So we can pretty safely guess the vast majority of gun related homicides have no relation to gangs. Since we have some data for that. So the other 4/5ths of homicides which are not gang related, must come from somewhere. Maybe Pa should lock up his shotgun more.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

Because of that 15-24 demographic, a staggeringly large number of said homicides are gang related.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Nearly 70% of those homicides (so nearly all of that 2300) are going to fall within the 15-24 demographic that's being cited here to include (children).

Additionally, a larger part of that 15-24 range (70%) can legally purchase a handgun.

 cincydooley wrote:
Because of that 15-24 demographic, a staggeringly large number of said homicides are gang related.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Nearly 70% of those homicides (so nearly all of that 2300) are going to fall within the 15-24 demographic that's being cited here to include (children).

Additionally, a larger part of that 15-24 range (70%) can legally purchase a handgun.

15-24 age range is not the same as 18-34 age range from that report you are linking. 23% of the the 18 and under deaths were gang related, which tracks with what I said. 68% of homicides between 18-34, a much different age group than 15-24, are gang related.

the legal age to buy handguns, is 21+.

Homicides were most often committed with handguns

The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increased
with age of the victim until age 17, where it peaked at 79%, and
declined thereafter

So most of the homicides are happening in an age range where people cannot legally buy a gun, at least in the 2008 report you found. My guess its about the same now still. They are most often committed with a handgun, not purchasable until 21+, of which the 21+ers in the 15-24 age range makes up ~40% of the people of that age bracket. If the gun related homicides are peaking at age 17 we can guess that most of the deaths in the 15-24 bracket are happening around 15-18. Which falls under the 18 and under where 23% are gang related..

Gang
violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all
homicides in 2008

again why are you talking about gangs.

They don't change anything about people misrepresenting the OP topic as an unintentional firearm death, to blow down the numbers of how many people die to firearms in the US under the age of 24. Which is approximately 25x more than the amount of people who died in the afghan war/occupation over a period of 14 years.

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

blaktoof wrote:

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.

I'd be surprised if any hard data at all existed as to how many deaths occurred due to insecurely stored firearms, especiallly when the police so often soft pedal it as "a tragic accident" instead of "criminally negligent homicide".

I know it's a number >20 or so a year or so, because I feel like I read at least that many stories a year, but more than that, I doubt it can really be quantified. The CDC keeps numbers on youth firearm deaths but doesn't break it down in that way and I don't think anyone else does either.

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.

Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?

I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.

maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.

So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?

You're right about handguns being 21+. I misspoke there.

And just because a 15-18 can't buy a gun legally doesn't mean they're coming from unsecured households when used in the commission of a homicide.

You also can't prove with the statistics you've provided that they aren't gang related.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your continued appeals to emotion and disingenuous inclusion of servicemembers is tiresome as well.

I think Gang Related was an underrated gem; probably the best performance of Tupac's movie career. I mean, it's pretty rare for him to be the voice of reason in a role.

blaktoof wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.

Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?

I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.

maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.

So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?

1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.

2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.

The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

By weapon type: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2013.xls


You'll have a hard time making any type of case 'unsecured firearms' are the cause.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think more people are going to fail that test than you realise. Also, it is not there to check that you are storing your guns safely but rather to check that you have the capacity to do so. If an incident later occurs with your firearm due to you not using that capacity then you get prosecuted.

So with gun locks included with every factory new firearm, and also available free you think people are still going to fail? Enough to justify the cost of a new Federal Agency and the erosion of the 4th Amendment?

 insaniak wrote:
It's also not discrimination to tell someone that if they want to buy something that is potentially dangerous, they have to have somewhere safe to store it.

Would a gun lock count, or would it specifically be a place to store it that must be safe?

 insaniak wrote:
No, in 'my' world, only people who actually have a valid use for them can own firearms.

Just like here. Self defense, sport shooting, collecting, hunting are all valid reasons

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You can't use laws to defacto discriminate against particular groups of people when it comes to their rights. .

It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't buy something that they can't afford to buy.

The argument doesn't hold. You can't use a money test to discriminate against a fundamental right in the US. Thats settled law.

I didn't think anyone actually advocated for poll taxes any more

 insaniak wrote:
I know that the old 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' thing tends to be unpopular on the internet, but sometimes it's true.

Pretty unpopular in real life too

 Kilkrazy wrote:
And that is why the UK has a terrible problem with householders shooting police men.

Source please

 Grey Templar wrote:
You take more risk crossing the street at a busy intersection than you do because your neighbor owns a gun.

Really, guns are so far down on the threat list that they are a non-issue. We're talking a level so small it could be the margin of error for another category.

This is how much firearm accidents contribute to accidental deaths

 insaniak wrote:
I can't speak for others, but I see it as a good/desirable thing because our last mass shooting was 20 years ago, as a result of our Federal government taking it on themselves to remove guns from the hands of people who don't actually need them.


Nitpicking over which arm of the government should do it is ultimately a red herring. If it were being suggested that State governments should do the same thing, there would be just as much resistance.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
Yet gun ownership has returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides have not increased

 whembly wrote:
Re-read the 10th amendment. Then show me where/what empowers the Federal Government to do what you're advocating.

We're already advocating undermining the 2nd and 4th Amendments, why not add another one as well. We could even garrison soldiers in homes too just to make sure the firearms are securely stored

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You are suggesting that we need to radically transform our entire judicial system, legislative process, and law enforcement on the basis of an extremely rare occurrence.

Actually I'm not. I've been against the whole federally mandated gun cabinet idea from the start. I believe my original argument was that gun owners can't claim "it's no one else's business", because sometimes guns do effect other people. And if something might kill you then it's very much your business. It's one thing to say "I disagree with you" it's another to say "you have no right to any opinion". Wouldn't you agree?

What a silly argument that can be used for anything. You just killed the most second most hallowed protection in the US -WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE-constitution protections against illegal searches.

I don't see how I have killed anything. As I have quite clearly spelled out I am against inspections, I'm against the fedral requirement for a gun cabinet. I really don't know what your problem is. Too much moonshine?

Prestor Jon wrote:
State and municipal laws requiring safe storage of firearms already exist. I'm not sure why some people in this thread seem to think they don't.

I'm not sure either, because I was wasn't one of them. I have already said I'm against the idea, you quoted me saying it, and I said before that I would be diametrically opposed to unwarranted police searches. So all your arguments about the 4th amendment and changing the judicial system aught to be directed at someone else.

My only argument was in response to people basically saying that gun deaths aren't significant enough to worry about. Which is really quite a grotesque argument. People do have a right to be concerned, and the first amendment guarantees them the right to voice that concern. Telling people it's none of their business is wrong, both ethically and objectively.

Prestor Jon wrote:
State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.

Yes, you figured out the key difference here: a limited-scope search (FAA inspection) is legal, a general "let's see if we can find anything" search (checking the plane for drugs) is not. Based on that precedent a limited-scope "are your guns stored legally" search would be legal, a general "you're a gun owner so we can look at anything we want" search would not. Inspecting your gun safe does not give the police permission to search the rest of your house for drugs, check your computer for evidence, etc, so your fourth amendment rights are intact.

There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.

That is a problem that can be fixed. In fact, putting guns under federal control and removing the state-to-state differences would be a good thing.

They can be concerned, and voice it. And I can be concerned and voice it when they also advocate infringing on my rights and giving the gov't a massive increase in intrusive power.

It may be grotesque, but look at the CDC stats. Gun deaths just are not that big compared to many other causes except when you are talking homicides or suicides (this is age agnostic).

Murder, regardless of weapon, is already illegal, and if you use a firearm it tends to add 10+ years to the sentencing for it.

No one here has proposed ANY law that would have a chance to meaningfully change any of the stats unless they start advocating for confiscation or massively intrusive searches to ensure 'secure storage'. Most of the anti-gun crowd here and in general have no idea what state and local laws already exist, or what federal laws exist.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
Yet gun ownership has returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides have not increased

Indeed. There was actually a study done a decade after Port Arthur that showed that the gun ban had no apparent effect on homicides, which had already been slowly declining (although there was a reduction in suicides). The suggestion at that time was that most gun related homicides happen with illegal weapons anyway. Of course, it's impossible to say whether they would have continued that same gradual decline without the gun ban... all we have is the statistics that show that the decline continued at more or less the same rate with the ban in place.

But then, preventing gun homicides in their entirety was never the primary aim of the law. Preventing another Port Arthur was.

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.

Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?

I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.

maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.

So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?

1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.

2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.

The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

By weapon type: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2013.xls


You'll have a hard time making any type of case 'unsecured firearms' are the cause.

Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.

I agree you can't get a lot of other information out of that in regards to guns being used in crimes by family members other than the guns owner.

The points however are:

Gun deaths are significant to worry about. They greatly outnumber in one year alone the amount of people who died in Military service during a period of 14 years while our country was at war.
From other data people under the legal age to by a handgun are the victims of most murders. If there is a disproportionate amount of these murders from people much older or younger than them? Possible, not likely. Most people in this age range interact mostly with their peers, outside of their family. I would have a hard time believing that most people are murdered by someone outside of their age range. I am having a hard time imagining a lot of 35+ year olds shooting 15-24 year olds for any reason that would be of significantly high % for these 8k gun homicides. I have a much easier time imagining 15-24 year olds having reason to shoot other 15-24 year olds that is of significant % in relation to the 8k gun homicides.

There are no statistics showing where the guns come from in these homicides.

However most of them are not gang related, and most of them are happening from people in an age range that can not legally purchase a gun. I somehow doubt they are coming from illegal gun sales to 15-18 year old, however I have no actual statistical data or proof to say so. Similarily I don't think anyone has statistical proof showing where most guns in crimes against various groups comes from.

So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"

Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.

These guns are from somewhere.

In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.

blaktoof wrote:


Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.

No. I did not. You are mistakenly attributing someone else's position to me, even though I've already told you that you are wrong.

blaktoof wrote:


So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"

Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.

These guns are from somewhere.

In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.

And you are wrong here, because, as I mentioned, you are confusing ages of victims with ages of perps. You have not shown any source showing numbers of murders committed by 15-24 year olds. None.

Frankly, you are so blinded by your hatred of guns that you are not making anything close to a coherent argument. Everything you are saying is based on data that does not show what you want it to show.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
Yet gun ownership has returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides have not increased

Indeed. There was actually a study done a decade after Port Arthur that showed that the gun ban had no apparent effect on homicides, which had already been slowly declining (although there was a reduction in suicides). The suggestion at that time was that most gun related homicides happen with illegal weapons anyway. Of course, it's impossible to say whether they would have continued that same gradual decline without the gun ban... all we have is the statistics that show that the decline continued at more or less the same rate with the ban in place.

But then, preventing gun homicides in their entirety was never the primary aim of the law. Preventing another Port Arthur was.

So if gun ownership has returned to the levels that existed before the ban, and no further Port Arthur style attack has happened (terror incident aside) then it could be said that the ban, forced buy back, etc. actually had no discernible effect other than feel good security theater.

This is what happens when politicians decide that we must "do something". We end up with ineffective legislation that undermines legal rights, and does nothing constructive.

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:


Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.

No. I did not. You are mistakenly attributing someone else's position to me, even though I've already told you that you are wrong.

blaktoof wrote:


So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"

Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.

These guns are from somewhere.

In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.

And you are wrong here, because, as I mentioned, you are confusing ages of victims with ages of perps. You have not shown any source showing numbers of murders committed by 15-24 year olds. None.

Frankly, you are so blinded by your hatred of guns that you are not making anything close to a coherent argument. Everything you are saying is based on data that does not show what you want it to show.

I think you are so blinded that you assume I hate guns.

I don't hate guns, and to be honest if the right to own a gun was taken away from me I would feel less safe.

I personally no longer own any firearms, because I have children in my house and don't want to keep firearms there and have no extra time to go to a shooting range- but I feel safer knowing I can go out and purchase a firearm again. I just don't believe having a firearm in the house makes my family safer, because having kids I know they are curious, get into trouble, and of the decisions they have to make I don't want them to come across one of my firearms, while "exploring" places they shouldn't with keys they shouldn't and have to make the decision to play with it or leave it alone. I also do not feel a need to teach my children to use guns, that's something they can decide when they are legally old enough to have one if they want. These are my beliefs and no one else needs to abide by them. The chance one of my kids dies from something while 1-24 is small, however I don't think adding to that chance is really worth simply owning a gun to go shooting with. I say that, because in my lifetime I have needed the guns I once owned, 0 times.

I think people should be responsible for the guns they own, and store them safely. Many victims of gun violence are under the legal age to buy guns, and there is most likely a large amount of guns that either intentionally or unintentionally end up being the weapon that causes injury or death that come from those peoples homes/family- and not from being purchased illegally or stolen.

Most victims of gun related homicide are 15-24. Do you think they are being killed mostly by people 25-34? 35+? There's no data on the age of who is killing certain age groups, but honestly what do you think?

blaktoof wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

A very significant amount of deaths are due to firearms in the household which are not properly stored. So significant that it greatly surpasses the amount of US service people that died in a war each year during modern times.

You cannot back that up with facts at all. There is no data linking that many deaths to improperly stored firearms.

Well its not coming from gang violence like you claimed...so where do you think those 77% homicides are coming from in the 15-24 age range, which are not gang related, and the guns were not purchased legally by the person committing the crimes?

I don't have statistics on age ranges of people buying guns from the black market, but the rate of stolen guns used in homicides is less than 5% according to the ATF.

maybe most of the people who buy guns on the black market are 15-18....I have no idea on that one, but my intuition tells me that's not right.

So the largest amount of homicides is 15-18 age range, they can't buy guns legally, they are not mostly gang related, and they are not stolen guns. Where do you personally think these guns came from?

1st off, I didn't claim a fething thing about gangs.

2nd: The age bracket is victims, not perps. In many cases the perps will be outside of the age bracket.

The following show the circumstances behind all homicides in 2013:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2013.xls

By weapon type: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2013.xls


You'll have a hard time making any type of case 'unsecured firearms' are the cause.

Juvenile gang murders with firearms 547, gangland killings, 117. Total firearm killings 8,454. 7.8% of killings were gang related. You insinuated most of the killings in the 15-24 age range were gang related.

I agree you can't get a lot of other information out of that in regards to guns being used in crimes by family members other than the guns owner.

The points however are:

Gun deaths are significant to worry about. They greatly outnumber in one year alone the amount of people who died in Military service during a period of 14 years while our country was at war.
From other data people under the legal age to by a handgun are the victims of most murders. If there is a disproportionate amount of these murders from people much older or younger than them? Possible, not likely. Most people in this age range interact mostly with their peers, outside of their family. I would have a hard time believing that most people are murdered by someone outside of their age range. I am having a hard time imagining a lot of 35+ year olds shooting 15-24 year olds for any reason that would be of significantly high % for these 8k gun homicides. I have a much easier time imagining 15-24 year olds having reason to shoot other 15-24 year olds that is of significant % in relation to the 8k gun homicides.

There are no statistics showing where the guns come from in these homicides.

However most of them are not gang related, and most of them are happening from people in an age range that can not legally purchase a gun. I somehow doubt they are coming from illegal gun sales to 15-18 year old, however I have no actual statistical data or proof to say so. Similarily I don't think anyone has statistical proof showing where most guns in crimes against various groups comes from.

So can I without a doubt say "most murders are committed by 15-24 year olds who get their guns from their family who did not properly lock them up"

Nope, But I can't- and apparently you cannot either account for where they get these guns when they cannot legally buy them, the % amount of stolen guns used in crimes by inmates is very low (5% according to ATF), and most of them are not supplied by their "gang" since very few of the homicides are gang related.

These guns are from somewhere.

In this case the homicide by firearm was committed by an 11 year old boy that got it from his home, it was most likely not secured in any fashion.

Chicago. One of highest incidence rates of teenage shooting victims in the country. They have extremely strict gun laws in Chicago making virtually impossible for residents to legally own and carry pistols. Illinois only just recently, this year IIRC, passed their law allowing concealed carry. A large majority of the teens shot in Chicago are shot by pistols. They are not getting those pistols from family members leaving them sitting g around the house because it's still extremely difficult for residents to legally own pistols. All of the gang violence in Chicago is not perpetrated with pistols improperly secured in the home.

I think the majority of the males in that demographic being murdered are either gang or drug related.

The data I provided supports that.

It also shows that nearly 30% of the homicides comitted by those under 18 are gang related. We can't compare the numbers to the CDC chart because one lumps 18 years olds with up to 24 year olds where the other lumps them with 25 year olds.

My "intuition" tells me you assumption that the large number of these are being committed because a parent didn't secure their firearm is wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
State and local law enforcement can't search your plane to see if you have illegal weapons, drugs or stolent goods in it without first establishing reasonable suspicion, probable cause or obtaining a warrant. Likewise, police can't search a gun owner's home just because there is a safe storage law in place. Having a law in place does not give police the right to violate 4th amendment protection with unsubstantiated searches. That has been enshrined in US case law for centuries.

Yes, you figured out the key difference here: a limited-scope search (FAA inspection) is legal, a general "let's see if we can find anything" search (checking the plane for drugs) is not. Based on that precedent a limited-scope "are your guns stored legally" search would be legal, a general "you're a gun owner so we can look at anything we want" search would not. Inspecting your gun safe does not give the police permission to search the rest of your house for drugs, check your computer for evidence, etc, so your fourth amendment rights are intact.

There is no federal or state license needed to own firearms for which you have to consent to storage searches in order to obtain that license.

That is a problem that can be fixed. In fact, putting guns under federal control and removing the state-to-state differences would be a good thing.

No you are still managing to ignore the key difference and the only one that counts. The FAA inspections have already been consented to as a condition for obtaining a federal license. Once consent is given agents can conduct the search.

Gun storage laws are no different than any other laws. Police don't have the right to search for violations without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. There is no such thing as a legal targeted search for violations of laws that doesn't require probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

There are copyright laws. The fact that those laws exist doesnt make it legal for police to search somebody's hard drive for illegal downloads that violate copyright laws. The police can't search your hard drive in a limited targeted manner for specific copyright law violations without establishing probable cause exists for finding those violations. Gun storage laws aren't special laws that don't qualify for 4th amendment protection just because. We literally have centuries of case law explaining this.

Gun laws aren't a matter of federal law they are a state and local matter. That's covered by the 10th amendment. Federal gun laws are limited to federal firearm licenses and interstate commerce of firearms.

blaktoof wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

No. It is not. And should not be. States and local governments have it covered.

They obviously don't, since we had two children-shooting-children incidents in two days.

It is not enough to have laws that punish those who are guilty after the crime has been committed, that doesn't bring someone's dead child back to life. The point of laws is to discourage the commission of crimes in the first place.

Why stop with gunz? Make improperly storing household cleaners a crime. Make having swimming pools a crime. Make allowing kids to play in the bath a crime. Make transporting your children via an automobile a crime. All of those things cause more deaths to kids than gun accidents.

And for gaks and giggles, how the heck to you suppose making gun storahuge laws a Federal issue rather than a state/local issue fixes a damned thing? As has already been pointed out, the feds cannot enforce them unless you are also advocating for a massive increase in federal LEOs and a repealing of the 4th amendment. The laws would only ever be able to be enforced after the fact/after the kid is dead. If people are willing to ignore current laws (and they are) how would making it a Federal law be any different?

Because people can die by a means does not mean the means is inherently dangerous.

Yes people fall in swimming pools and drown.

In 2013 approximately 33,000 people died to gun related deaths. Albeit 2/3rds of those were suicides.

683 people died from unintentional swimming pool accidents between the Years of 2005-2009. I couldn't find more current data for that.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

If you consider 683 people accidentally dying over a 5 year period and 11,700 people dying over a 1 year period there is a two order of magnitude greater difference.

Here's another statistical number.

2,900 people total died during 9/11 or the rescue operation afterwards. Our country signed into act various government things that greatly increased "national security" and took away many rights and privileges we once had. We also went to war in two countries over it for a war/occupation that lasted approximately 10 years.

That is 1/4th the amount of people who die to domestic gun related events, which are not suicides.

So yeah we can say anything can kill so why stop at guns, so therefore guns should not be regulated. However the number of deaths is a large issue. Its a number 400% larger than the death toll in 9/11 which our country went re-tard-ed over.

What about alcohol then, if you are worried about order of magnitude with things that cause death and where we put our efforts? According to the CDC, 83,000 + people die per year due to alcohol related causes. Tack on to that, two out of three domestic abuse cases involve alcohol, or the amount of health problems caused, homes broken, jobs lost, work hours lost, etc. Compared to alcohol, guns is a small potatoes issue.