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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.

So, it's a non-starter.

I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.

Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.

Right, it'd never even get to that point.

See Colorado in 2012/14 when they passed the restrictive gun laws. The electorate voted their asses out afterwards.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed

The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.

If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.

So, it's a non-starter.

I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.

Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.

Right, it'd never even get to that point.

See Colorado in 2012/14 when they passed the restrictive gun laws. The electorate voted their asses out afterwards.

How can you be so sure. It used to be illigal to be gay, now gay marriage is legal across the country. You have no idea what this country will be like 100-200 years from now. Hell, 50 years ago.

Note: I am not saying it will or should, only that it can.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not arguing anything, I was having a discussion. I'm not angry or heated about this discussion but it is a debate/conversion.

And you've been very polite, and thankyou for that, but at the same time you keep talking around the really basic facts of this. You ended going back in to definition discussions about spree killings vs mass shootings, and it just doesn't matter. There's no sensible argument that spree killings and mass shootings have different motivations or causes. They have different definitions in different organisations but those are purely bureaucratic things.

What remains that absolute, basic most important thing is that however you describe or review the issue, whether there's one victim, two victims, three victims or more, in the developed world the problem of gun violence is massively more common in the US.

I am curious how it ends up because they are seeking a "mental competency" test. Current data only shows that less than 5% of gun homicides between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with mental illness. All the other shooters have something else going on that isn't defined by todays definition of "mental illness". Just they start to diagnose new mental illness due to technology and social media, for example selfies are classified as a mental disorder now.

This is an extremely good point. There's a lot of nonsense around the gun debate, and lots of scary sounding things with no basis in reality end up at the centre of new gun control measures. The focus on mental health checks is the new version of the old focus on 'assault weapons'.

I linked it because it is talking about the social aspects. There is a bit more in her book but it talks about the sociology of these people not connecting through normal means. They find a connection with these other shooters. It is why you have the manifesto, the similar posed pictures.

Yeah, that was the point made in The New Yorker piece, and it was a very good point. But the WaPo piece didn't really cover that some ground, it just said the shooters were from the margins of society, and well, you know, duh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I did a little chart comparing murder rates ( this is over-all murder rates, not gun deaths) of all the States in the US, plus Washington D.C. to gun ownership rates. What I found is actually quite interesting.

D.C. and Louisiana are statistical outliers. D.C. has, by far, the lowest gun ownership rates, but drastically the highest murder rate, more than double that of most of the other states.

The states of the US have open borders, making state specific gun laws very limited in their value.

What you want to do is compare developed countries, look at the murder rate in the OECD countries. And the stats are really about as clear as anything ever is. All the other countries are tightly packed around 0.8 to 1.2. Canada is a slight outlier at 1.4. And then you have the US at 3.8 per 100,000. Almost four times the average, more than double the next most violent developed country.

And for all the talk about other issues, on almost all other crime the US is completely normal, even on the mild side. Muggings, assaults, break ins, car theft, the US has about as much as anyone else. But then on murder, you are out on your own. The reason is really very obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
Because it stops people who should not have access to firearms, getting access to firearms, and you've got to start somewhere?
The initial cost of any project is usually the largest part, but after the initial cost, it becomes much, much less to maintain that structure.

I agree with you that there's no 2nd amendment infringement in a gun registry, but in terms of maintaining that registry it really would be an immense drain. Here in Australia, with 20 million people, far fewer guns per capita, and much greater state and federal police co-operation, the registry is so poorly maintained that it's utterly useless.

Trying to set up something like that for the US, with 300m guns and masses amounts of trading, it'd never be reliable enough to useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".

For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?

Just as its pretty dubious to think there's any kind of gun control legislation that could reduce the death toll, it's equally dubious to think that training and education would do any better. Accidents are a minor part of the death toll, and the ones that are rarely due to a lack of technical skill, but instead are the result of being too casual - gun safety is more discipline than knowledge and a half day training course won't build that discipline.

The reality is that US gun culture means lots of people get to have fun hunting, shooting and collecting every day, but it also comes with a death toll. That is the basic reality. Lots of fun things have a cost in lives. Alcohol, fast food, sugary drinks, guns.

It doesn't necessarily mean they have to banned, I think we need to push back against the drive towards more and more safety laws, because a perfectly safe world is a perfectly boring one. But we need to be honest about the relationship between guns and deaths.

As an update on the story:

The Latest: Police want charge for mother shot by 4-year-old
Mar. 22, 2016 2:42 PM EDT

Police are recommending a misdemeanor charge for the mother of a 4-year-old boy who got a hold of her handgun and shot her as they were riding in a pickup truck.

Putnam County Sheriff's Capt. Gator DeLoach said Tuesday that Jamie Gilt put a loaded gun underneath the front seat and the weapon slid into the back where her son Lane was riding in a booster seat. Authorities said the child had recently learned how to unbuckle himself and picked up the gun. The boy fired through the front seat, hitting his mother in the back. She was in the hospital but DeLoach wasn't sure if she was still there or her current condition.

Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested.

The state's child welfare agency is also investigating the March 8 shooting.

___

10:20 a.m.

Police in Florida will discuss the results of their investigation into the shooting of mother by her 4-year-old boy who shot his mother in the back after getting ahold of her loaded gun.

The sheriff's office is scheduled to address reporters Tuesday afternoon about its criminal inquiry into the mother, Jamie Gilt. She's apparently a gun lover who made numerous social media postings about gun rights. She's been hospitalized since the March 8 incident.

She was shot on the back while driving after the boy got hold of the loaded gun and fired through the driver's seat.

The 31-year-old mother could face charges of leaving a weapon unsecured and improperly stored, but authorities have said she legally owned the firearm.

Florida's Department of Children and Families also is investigating.

So, it wasn't in her purse, even. Well done.

Yeah, extreme negligence. I would go beyond this and charge her with child endangerment.

 Ouze wrote:
As an update on the story:

The Latest: Police want charge for mother shot by 4-year-old
Mar. 22, 2016 2:42 PM EDT

Police are recommending a misdemeanor charge for the mother of a 4-year-old boy who got a hold of her handgun and shot her as they were riding in a pickup truck.

Putnam County Sheriff's Capt. Gator DeLoach said Tuesday that Jamie Gilt put a loaded gun underneath the front seat and the weapon slid into the back where her son Lane was riding in a booster seat. Authorities said the child had recently learned how to unbuckle himself and picked up the gun. The boy fired through the front seat, hitting his mother in the back. She was in the hospital but DeLoach wasn't sure if she was still there or her current condition.

Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested.

The state's child welfare agency is also investigating the March 8 shooting.

___

10:20 a.m.

Police in Florida will discuss the results of their investigation into the shooting of mother by her 4-year-old boy who shot his mother in the back after getting ahold of her loaded gun.

The sheriff's office is scheduled to address reporters Tuesday afternoon about its criminal inquiry into the mother, Jamie Gilt. She's apparently a gun lover who made numerous social media postings about gun rights. She's been hospitalized since the March 8 incident.

She was shot on the back while driving after the boy got hold of the loaded gun and fired through the driver's seat.

The 31-year-old mother could face charges of leaving a weapon unsecured and improperly stored, but authorities have said she legally owned the firearm.

Florida's Department of Children and Families also is investigating.

So, it wasn't in her purse, even. Well done.

Good.

"Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested. "

That sounds a lot like a reckless endangerment charge, which isn't something to sneeze at.

If she is convicted will it bar her from gun ownership?

I think it depends on if the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor.

Good. There are so many options available nowadays to people who want to carry a weapon in their vehicle safely. There is literally no excuse whatsoever for simply putting your gun underneath the seat. There are tons of different options for holsters and car storage: console holsters, seat holsters, etc. So many ways to safely and securely travel with a handgun accessible to her and not her child, if she had taken the very small effort to actually do it right.

 Hordini wrote:
Good. There are so many options available nowadays to people who want to carry a weapon in their vehicle safely. There is literally no excuse whatsoever for simply putting your gun underneath the seat. There are tons of different options for holsters and car storage: console holsters, seat holsters, etc. So many ways to safely and securely travel with a handgun accessible to her and not her child, if she had taken the very small effort to actually do it right.

Agreed. Keeping the gun in the car in such a dangerous manner is just plain stupid even without adding in the presence of the child. A loose gun sliding around the floor under the front seat and into the back seat area would be of no use to her if she ran into a situation where she needed it. I hope the DA hits her with a charge that sticks and she suffers the legal consequences of her stupidity.

 Hordini wrote:
There is literally no excuse whatsoever for simply putting your gun underneath the seat.

How about: stupid?

But making someone use extra equolipment to make sure that the gun is secure is infringing on the right to bear arms...

 skyth wrote:
But making someone use extra equolipment to make sure that the gun is secure is infringing on the right to bear arms...

Is this a serious or sarcastic post?

 skyth wrote:
But making someone use extra equolipment to make sure that the gun is secure is infringing on the right to bear arms...

How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either. She is in trouble for failing to handle her pistol responsibly and keep it out of the hands of a child and from being discharged negligently. She could have duct taped it to her center console and if it accomplished the task of keeping it secured from negligent discharges and out of the hands of children then she wouldn't be in trouble right now.

Any requirement to have anything extra with a gun is an infringement. (And yes, this is sarcasm).

Prestor Jon wrote:
[How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either.

What you say is true in spirit, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but it most definitely often is very specific about transporting firearms. I don't know the patchwork of every states laws regarding transporting firearms, but I can definitely tell you that in Iowa, there are very specific rules about legally transporting firearms in a car. The code section is confusingly written, so I'll just summarize: if you have a pistol in a car, it must be unloaded, in a closed container (case is fine), in a way that's not accessible from the passenger compartment (in a trunk). I also studied up on the state laws of states I was travelling through where I might go shooting, and I can tell you they are very similar in, for example, Tennessee at the time I was there - firearms must be stored in the trunk unloaded with ammunition separately.

In both state's cases, and presumably in this woman's case, these restrictions don't apply if you have a concealed carry permit. This is where the latter element you bring up comes up, you can't endanger children and be negligent. However, unless you have a CCW, it's not a grey area of common sense; the law has very specific proscriptions.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
[How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either.

What you say is true in spirit, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but it most definitely often is very specific about transporting firearms. I don't know the patchwork of every states laws regarding transporting firearms, but I can definitely tell you that in Iowa, there are very specific rules about legally transporting firearms in a car. The code section is confusingly written, so I'll just summarize: if you have a pistol in a car, it must be unloaded, in a closed container (case is fine), in a way that's not accessible from the passenger compartment (in a trunk). I also studied up on the state laws of states I was travelling through where I might go shooting, and I can tell you they are very similar in, for example, Tennessee at the time I was there - firearms must be stored in the trunk unloaded with ammunition separately.

In both state's cases, and presumably in this woman's case, these restrictions don't apply if you have a concealed carry permit. This is where the latter element you bring up comes up, you can't endanger children and be negligent. However, unless you have a CCW, it's not a grey area of common sense; the law has very specific proscriptions.

You're right that was poor wording in my point. I was directing my response to the issue of the woman in the OP, who has a CCW permit, and therefore could have secured her pistol in a whole host of ways that could have prevented the pistol of sliding along the floorboards into a position where her son could play with it. You are absolutely right that states have distinct and specific requirements for the general transport of firearms and anyone driving through other states should look them up to avoid any noncompliance issues that can lead to very serious charges.