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.
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
Yeah, and those locked up guns are properly stored.
The gun in a shoebox under the bed that is then used by a six year old to kill a four year old is not.
edit: syntax
Keeping a gun in a shoebox under the bed where a 6 year old can access it and use it to kill or injure another person is already a crime. If I leave a gun out somewhere and somebody, child or adult, accesses it and negligently uses it to hurt themselves or somebody else I'll be prosecuted.
Wait, that's already a crime? Then what has the last couple pages of sky is falling jack booted thugs kicking down your door to check for gun safes hysteria been about then?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Kilkrazy wrote: Then we have a solution. You contract with a gun club of your choice to have your gun storage facilities at home inspected for safety.
This is a better distinction, yes. Iowa requires I take a class before giving me a concealed carry permit, but I contract with the private party of my choice; the state just wants the paper from an accredited authority.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
feeder wrote: Wait, that's already a crime? Then what has the last couple pages of sky is falling jack booted thugs kicking down your door to check for gun safes hysteria been about then?
This is the US. We don't stop crimes; we prosecute any responsible survivors.
Prestor Jon wrote: Keeping a gun in a shoebox under the bed where a 6 year old can access it and use it to kill or injure another person is already a crime. If I leave a gun out somewhere and somebody, child or adult, accesses it and negligently uses it to hurt themselves or somebody else I'll be prosecuted.
This is dancing around the truth, and I think you know it. Improperly storing a firearm is generally speaking not a crime in and of itself.
You're referring to a catchall criminal negligence which doesn't specifically govern firearms at all, it could just as easily apply to a dog or a car or a hammer. If you want to argue that's adequate than that's one thing but I think the distinction is pretty clear in that a law governing firearm storage is clearly intended to avoid the child shooting in the first place, not serve as a deterrent after the fact.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 21:04:58
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Prestor Jon wrote: Keeping a gun in a shoebox under the bed where a 6 year old can access it and use it to kill or injure another person is already a crime. If I leave a gun out somewhere and somebody, child or adult, accesses it and negligently uses it to hurt themselves or somebody else I'll be prosecuted.
This is dancing around the truth, and I think you know it. Improperly storing a firearm is generally speaking not a crime in and of itself.
You're referring to a catchall criminal negligence which doesn't specifically govern firearms at all, it could just as easily apply to a dog or a car or a hammer. If you want to argue that's adequate than that's one thing but I think the distinction is pretty clear in that a law governing firearm storage is clearly intended to avoid the child shooting in the first place, not serve as a deterrent after the fact.
No, it's a class 1 misdemeanor in North Carolina, the state I live in.
§ 14-315.1. Storage of firearms to protect minors.
(a) Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and (ii) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if a minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor:
(1) Possesses it in violation of G.S. 14-269.2(b);
(2) Exhibits it in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner;
(3) Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense; or
(4) Uses it in the commission of a crime.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from carrying a firearm on his or her body, or placed in such close proximity that it can be used as easily and quickly as if carried on the body.
(c) This section shall not apply if the minor obtained the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
(d) "Minor" as used in this section means a person under 18 years of age who is not emancipated. (1993, c. 558, s. 2; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 14, s. 11.)
If a minor gains possession of one of my guns and brings it onto school grounds, even if they never discharge it, it's a felony. And being convicted of that felony will revoke my rights to lawfully own firearms.
§ 14-269.2. Weapons on campus or other educational property.
(c) It shall be a Class I felony for any person to cause, encourage, or aid a minor who is less than 18 years old to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind on educational property. However, this subsection does not apply to a BB gun, stun gun, air rifle, or air pistol.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then we have a solution. You contract with a gun club of your choice to have your gun storage facilities at home inspected for safety.
This is a better distinction, yes. Iowa requires I take a class before giving me a concealed carry permit, but I contract with the private party of my choice; the state just wants the paper from an accredited authority.
And this is part of the issue. You don't have a catch-all requirement as to what is proper "accrediting". Also any inspections surrounding secure storage and the like would have to be randomly done to prevent people from just doing what they need to on the day of the inspection that gets scheduled.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then we have a solution. You contract with a gun club of your choice to have your gun storage facilities at home inspected for safety.
This is a better distinction, yes. Iowa requires I take a class before giving me a concealed carry permit, but I contract with the private party of my choice; the state just wants the paper from an accredited authority.
And this is part of the issue. You don't have a catch-all requirement as to what is proper "accrediting". Also any inspections surrounding secure storage and the like would have to be randomly done to prevent people from just doing what they need to on the day of the inspection that gets scheduled.
I agree, but that's not an insurmountable issue, either. Well, at least the former.
Anyway this is all a moot point. The real problem with preventing this and absolutely every shooting is the way that the US currently interprets the second amendment. Nothing is going to change as the second amendment is currently written, and there is currently little appetite among the public to do so, so pretty much any significant restriction is doomed. Rinse and repeat until that changes, which it won't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/23 21:29:11
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Description of State Child Access Prevention Laws
CAP laws take a variety of forms. The strongest laws impose criminal liability when a minor is likely to gain access to a negligently stored firearm regardless of whether the minor actually gains access (California). The weakest merely prohibit certain persons, such as parents or guardians, from directly providing a firearm to a minor (Utah). There is a wide range of laws that fall somewhere between these extremes, including laws that impose criminal liability for negligently stored firearms, but only where the child uses the firearm and causes death or serious injury. Weaker laws impose penalties only in the event of reckless, knowing or intentional conduct by the adult. State CAP laws also differ on the definition of “minor.”
Laws Imposing Criminal Liability when a Child Gains Access as a Result of Negligent Storage of a Firearm
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to the firearm. Typically, these laws apply whenever the person “knows or reasonably should know” that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm.
Do Safe Storage Laws Reduce Gun Accidents?
A study published in a medical journal article (Cummings, Peter et. al, "State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms, "Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 [October 1, 1997]: 1084-86) "looked at 12 states that had enacted Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The CAP laws provide criminal penalties for gun owners who fail to use trigger locks or otherwise adequately restrict access to their firearms by children." (Bell, Dawson, "Trigger locks may not be solution to gun problems," Detroit Free Press, March 29, 2000)
The following are additional excerpts from the just cited Detroit Free Press news article. (If the majority of news accounts were as thorough and balanced as this one, GunCite wouldn't be necessary. The article is worth reading in its entirety.)
"The researchers found that accidental deaths among children younger than 15 were '23 percent lower than expected.'
"Using the 23 percent figure, the researchers estimated that the lives of 39 children were spared in the CAP law states [over a period of up to 4 years]. In states without the laws, it was estimated that 216 children who died could have been saved [again over a 4 year period].
"[A] Free Press analysis of child mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta indicated that although there was some impact from safe storage laws, it was barely measurable and dwarfed by a sharp decline nationally in accidental shooting deaths.
"That decline includes all manner of unintentional shootings, such as when a child finds a loaded gun in the house, plays with it and accidentally kills someone.
"Between the mid-1980s and the mid-90s, unintentional firearm fatalities in U.S. children younger than 15 dropped nearly 44 percent, the analysis found.
"In states that enacted CAP laws during that period, the decline was marginally greater -- 45.1 percent vs. 42.6 percent for non-CAP states.
"If the slight differences between CAP and non-CAP states could be entirely attributed to trigger locks, the laws were responsible for saving the lives of 1.75 children a year, the Free Press found." [emphasis added]
"Don Kates, a civil rights lawyer in California who has written several books about gun-related issues, said many of the public health researchers studying gun violence are open advocates of gun control whose work is twisted in public debate.
"Children younger than 5 are twice as likely to die from ingesting household poisons than by gunfire, said Kates, a gun-rights advocate.
" 'So the question for the Legislature should be: Is a parent criminally responsible for leaving an unlocked container of bleach below the sink?' Kates said."
Another conclusion the article reports is, "[T]rigger locks appeared to have no impact on murder or suicide by children, adolescents or adults."
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
Actually most were in the last 100 years.
In contrast we have a plethora of states in the Americas with stringent gun laws, and murder rates that would make Putin blanch.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote: Then we have a solution. You contract with a gun club of your choice to have your gun storage facilities at home inspected for safety.
This is a better distinction, yes. Iowa requires I take a class before giving me a concealed carry permit, but I contract with the private party of my choice; the state just wants the paper from an accredited authority.
And this is part of the issue. You don't have a catch-all requirement as to what is proper "accrediting". Also any inspections surrounding secure storage and the like would have to be randomly done to prevent people from just doing what they need to on the day of the inspection that gets scheduled.
There would never be uniformity in secure storage laws or inspections because it's a state issue not Federal. Firearms purchased from FFLs are required to include trigger locks per Federal law because purchasing guns from a FFL is interstate commerce. Securely storing a gun in your private residence is not interstate commerce, there is no Federal jurisdiction over how privately owned firearms are stored so it's a state issue so you can have different laws or no laws on it at all depending on the state.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
.... and I agree. Guns should still be available, but with a "changed receipe" for how you store or procure them. They are still easily accessible with back ground checks and liability insurance requirements for ownership. Then, we can regulate businesses (such as Insurance companies, gun shops, and gun show organizers) to enforce these items. So, Guns really are no different from things we all ready regulate for safety reasons.
.... except we choose to put them in some special "class" for .... reasons?
What new procurement or storage methods do you want to see implemented and how would they mitigate crimes committed with guns? Most states already have safe storage laws for gun ownership. Why did the thread go off on the tangent of storage anyway? Safely secured doesn't mean that the owner is the only one that can access them, the Santa Fe shooting wasn't a result of improper storage. When I'm not using, cleaning or carrying any of my guns they're locked up in the safe but I'm not the only one that can open the safe, my wife and our older kids all know how to open it too. Proper storage means not doing things like leaving a pistol in the kids' Lego bin or tossing it under the front seat on my way to the range or leaving rifles laying out on the coffee table. Having your shotgun and revolver locked up but having your 17 year old son know the combination or know where you keep the key doesn't violate any secure storage laws.
Secure storage laws also don't automatically give police probably cause to search your house for unsecured guns. We already have a ton of laws that people could potentially be violating in their homes yet the police can't just show up at your door and enter your house against your wishes to search for potential illegal activity without a warrant or probable cause. The fact that it is possible that I am violating a law inside my house does not mean there is probable cause for the police to believe I am actively violating a law inside my house.
Even if somehow for some reason gun storage laws were the one exception allowed under the 4th amendment before any inspections could even take place we'd first need to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry which would require state laws to be passed and that's going to be difficult to do in more than a few states and be enforced by local and state law enforcement which will be a tremendous strain on resources.
All of this came up from the notion of holding people negligent for their weapons being used in criminal acts. Therefore, safe storage became an issue and who can or can nto access them became a topic. So, regarding Santa Fe, the kid used his Dad's weapons and kid shooters typically get their weapons from someone else. Therefore, the question is how did they have access to the weapon when they did not procure them as their own property. This then led to who would have the power to perform safe storage inspections (which is abit of a re herring since thediscussion was in the context of investigating negligence by the police, so presumably the police. This is a very different situation than random searches and verification).
Our little side discussion was prompted by the comment tha the probability of someone being killed in a school shooting was low, and therefore we did not need to have the Government take any meaningful action on the topic. I then pointed to situations where the probability of injury/death were low but the Government still regulated on behalf of the public. You rightly pointed out some the specifics of those situations. I countered with the fact that these specifics did not really change the idea that the Government can choose to put regulations in place around liability insurance for weapons being required, safe storage laws, or other market-based regulations on gun sales/permitting/insurance. However, for some reason... as a society.... we put guns in some sort of special case that these normal regulatory concepts do not apply even though none of these potential regulations would infringe on a citizens rights to obtain and maintain a weapon.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
.... and I agree. Guns should still be available, but with a "changed receipe" for how you store or procure them. They are still easily accessible with back ground checks and liability insurance requirements for ownership. Then, we can regulate businesses (such as Insurance companies, gun shops, and gun show organizers) to enforce these items. So, Guns really are no different from things we all ready regulate for safety reasons.
.... except we choose to put them in some special "class" for .... reasons?
What new procurement or storage methods do you want to see implemented and how would they mitigate crimes committed with guns? Most states already have safe storage laws for gun ownership. Why did the thread go off on the tangent of storage anyway? Safely secured doesn't mean that the owner is the only one that can access them, the Santa Fe shooting wasn't a result of improper storage. When I'm not using, cleaning or carrying any of my guns they're locked up in the safe but I'm not the only one that can open the safe, my wife and our older kids all know how to open it too. Proper storage means not doing things like leaving a pistol in the kids' Lego bin or tossing it under the front seat on my way to the range or leaving rifles laying out on the coffee table. Having your shotgun and revolver locked up but having your 17 year old son know the combination or know where you keep the key doesn't violate any secure storage laws.
Secure storage laws also don't automatically give police probably cause to search your house for unsecured guns. We already have a ton of laws that people could potentially be violating in their homes yet the police can't just show up at your door and enter your house against your wishes to search for potential illegal activity without a warrant or probable cause. The fact that it is possible that I am violating a law inside my house does not mean there is probable cause for the police to believe I am actively violating a law inside my house.
Even if somehow for some reason gun storage laws were the one exception allowed under the 4th amendment before any inspections could even take place we'd first need to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry which would require state laws to be passed and that's going to be difficult to do in more than a few states and be enforced by local and state law enforcement which will be a tremendous strain on resources.
All of this came up from the notion of holding people negligent for their weapons being used in criminal acts. Therefore, safe storage became an issue and who can or can nto access them became a topic. So, regarding Santa Fe, the kid used his Dad's weapons and kid shooters typically get their weapons from someone else. Therefore, the question is how did they have access to the weapon when they did not procure them as their own property. This then led to who would have the power to perform safe storage inspections (which is abit of a re herring since thediscussion was in the context of investigating negligence by the police, so presumably the police. This is a very different situation than random searches and verification).
Our little side discussion was prompted by the comment tha the probability of someone being killed in a school shooting was low, and therefore we did not need to have the Government take any meaningful action on the topic. I then pointed to situations where the probability of injury/death were low but the Government still regulated on behalf of the public. You rightly pointed out some the specifics of those situations. I countered with the fact that these specifics did not really change the idea that the Government can choose to put regulations in place around liability insurance for weapons being required, safe storage laws, or other market-based regulations on gun sales/permitting/insurance. However, for some reason... as a society.... we put guns in some sort of special case that these normal regulatory concepts do not apply even though none of these potential regulations would infringe on a citizens rights to obtain and maintain a weapon.
Safe storage laws wouldn't prevent teenagers from having access to their parents' guns if the parents felt it appropriate to give them access. The Santa Fe shooting didn't happen because the guns weren't secured it happened because the parents didn't think their son was going to go on a murder spree. Same as Sandy Hook.
So basically it comes down yet again to the sociopath behind the tool, not the tool itself. Why didn't the Boston Bombing have the activist out pounding the street to limit access to pressure cookers and metal fasteners? We punished the person behind that attack, not Proctor and Gamble for making the pot or Grainger for making the bolts.
skyth wrote: Because pressure cookers are used for and designed for lots of things that do no involve harming something else.
Gasoline is used for a lot of things too - you can use it to make a very powerful explosive.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Kilkrazy wrote: To be honest, the rest of the civilised world sees yet another school gun massacre in the USA -- only 10 dead this time -- and is amazed at how pants on head stupid it seems not to acknowledge the role of guns in the matter.
Given that the rest of the civilised world has not collapsed into a series of police state dictatorships despite having gun control, and doesn't suffer regular mass shootings, this attitude may have some elements of reasonable cogitation behind it.
And to also be fair, most of the world didn't have the gun proliferation, and recent expansions (last 150 years) that the US has had. We have to make laws based off of our unique situation. How do we make things safer without restricting rights beyond reasonable expectation. Coupled with the fact that we honestly can't trust much our police forces to protect us, or even do the right thing, this is a hard place to be in.
We have to find compromise that works with the two loudest sides:
"Mah Rights" people who see any compromise as throwing out the second amendment
and the "Repeal the Second" crowd that wants to get rid of guns altogether, or at least make it as hard as possible to be a gun owner (my aunt falls into this category).
I have an honest question (EU so out of the water on this one). I 100% understand that the US citizens have a constitutional right to purchase and keep firearms. On the other hand, don't people also have the right to be able to send their kid to school without having to worry that they are going to get shot because neighbour X was irresponsible with his firearms?
Lets put things in perspective. Broadly speaking, the chances of your average k-12 student being killed by gunshot at school is one in several million. We're talking lotto level odds here.
Now, the fact that it happens at all is awful, but ultimately its something that is so rare, and more important, seemingly random, that in actual practice the school's parking lot presents a danger orders of magnitude larger, and resources devoted to things like traffic safety, healthcare and nutrition, school renovations, after school programs, etc would almost certainly save many more lives at a much lower cost.
This is a tough argument to agree with because the same is true of any number of things that we regulate now and take for granted, things like.....
1. Eating lead paint
2. Lethal cases of food poisoning
3. Terrorists blowing up your airplane
4. Having heavy things fall on you while at work
etc, etc, etc.
1. Good example, we didn't get rid of paint, we just changed the recipe, consuming paint is still bad for you but it's just as accessible as it ever was
2. We only regulate businesses that sell or serve food, the govt isn't inspecting your kitchen or refrigerator but they're regulating WalMart and Chipotle. The same way the govt regulates FFLs but not private individuals.
3. We should really remove a lot of the anti terror laws in the Patriot Act, get rid of the No Fly List entirely and reform airport security, this is just another example of bloated, excessive, oppressive govt bureaucracy
4. Workplace accidents are still a common and dangerous occurrence in the construction industry https://www.bls.gov/iif/
.... and I agree. Guns should still be available, but with a "changed receipe" for how you store or procure them. They are still easily accessible with back ground checks and liability insurance requirements for ownership. Then, we can regulate businesses (such as Insurance companies, gun shops, and gun show organizers) to enforce these items. So, Guns really are no different from things we all ready regulate for safety reasons.
.... except we choose to put them in some special "class" for .... reasons?
What new procurement or storage methods do you want to see implemented and how would they mitigate crimes committed with guns? Most states already have safe storage laws for gun ownership. Why did the thread go off on the tangent of storage anyway? Safely secured doesn't mean that the owner is the only one that can access them, the Santa Fe shooting wasn't a result of improper storage. When I'm not using, cleaning or carrying any of my guns they're locked up in the safe but I'm not the only one that can open the safe, my wife and our older kids all know how to open it too. Proper storage means not doing things like leaving a pistol in the kids' Lego bin or tossing it under the front seat on my way to the range or leaving rifles laying out on the coffee table. Having your shotgun and revolver locked up but having your 17 year old son know the combination or know where you keep the key doesn't violate any secure storage laws.
Secure storage laws also don't automatically give police probably cause to search your house for unsecured guns. We already have a ton of laws that people could potentially be violating in their homes yet the police can't just show up at your door and enter your house against your wishes to search for potential illegal activity without a warrant or probable cause. The fact that it is possible that I am violating a law inside my house does not mean there is probable cause for the police to believe I am actively violating a law inside my house.
Even if somehow for some reason gun storage laws were the one exception allowed under the 4th amendment before any inspections could even take place we'd first need to establish an accurate and comprehensive registry which would require state laws to be passed and that's going to be difficult to do in more than a few states and be enforced by local and state law enforcement which will be a tremendous strain on resources.
All of this came up from the notion of holding people negligent for their weapons being used in criminal acts. Therefore, safe storage became an issue and who can or can nto access them became a topic. So, regarding Santa Fe, the kid used his Dad's weapons and kid shooters typically get their weapons from someone else. Therefore, the question is how did they have access to the weapon when they did not procure them as their own property. This then led to who would have the power to perform safe storage inspections (which is abit of a re herring since thediscussion was in the context of investigating negligence by the police, so presumably the police. This is a very different situation than random searches and verification).
Our little side discussion was prompted by the comment tha the probability of someone being killed in a school shooting was low, and therefore we did not need to have the Government take any meaningful action on the topic. I then pointed to situations where the probability of injury/death were low but the Government still regulated on behalf of the public. You rightly pointed out some the specifics of those situations. I countered with the fact that these specifics did not really change the idea that the Government can choose to put regulations in place around liability insurance for weapons being required, safe storage laws, or other market-based regulations on gun sales/permitting/insurance. However, for some reason... as a society.... we put guns in some sort of special case that these normal regulatory concepts do not apply even though none of these potential regulations would infringe on a citizens rights to obtain and maintain a weapon.
Safe storage laws wouldn't prevent teenagers from having access to their parents' guns if the parents felt it appropriate to give them access. The Santa Fe shooting didn't happen because the guns weren't secured it happened because the parents didn't think their son was going to go on a murder spree. Same as Sandy Hook.
Would a parent provide access to their guns if their was a consequence to themselves if the child did something inappropriate with the weapon like say; brandish it in public; illegally discharge it, commit a robbery, etc?
Maybe, maybe not. However, we currently have no deterrent for someone like the Sandy Hook shooters' Mom to just give their kid access to their guns. Perhaps not the best example, as she was the first victim; but you probably understand my meaning.
However, my main point is that there are lots of things we can do and still maintain the 2A. We just choose not to because we as a society treat guns in an irrational way that we do not treat other products and tools.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/23 22:36:13
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
You have not heard of inalienable rights?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
You have not heard of inalienable rights?
I think the problem is the claim that rights are god-given. To quote George Carlin on that particular point:
Spoiler:
But let’s say it’s true, let’s say God gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The Bill of Rights of this country has ten stipulations, okay? Ten rights. And apparently God was doing sloppy work that week because we had to amend the Bill of Rights an additional seventeen times. So God forgot a couple of things. Like… slavery! Just fething slipped his mind. [laughing] But let’s say, let’s say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British thirteen, the British Bill of Rights has thirteen stipulations. The Germans have twenty-nine, the Belgians have twenty-five, the Swedish have only six, and some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a fething goddamn god-given deal is that? No rights at all? Why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
Yeah, that's not a realistic scenario in which you would be found criminally liable. it appears most states have laws about storing your firearms and penalties for not doing so.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
Yeah, that's not a realistic scenario in which you would be found criminally liable. it appears most states have laws about storing your firearms and penalties for not doing so.
And yet that wasn't what was suggested. The only criteria given is that someone gained access to my weapons.
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
Yeah, that's not a realistic scenario in which you would be found criminally liable. it appears most states have laws about storing your firearms and penalties for not doing so.
And yet that wasn't what was suggested. The only criteria given is that someone gained access to my weapons.
Wouldn't an investigation prove that you were not negligent if you had securely stored your weapon? I mean, isn't that what we are talking about? I assume police don't just randomly charge people with negligence without an investigation right? Then once charged, don;t they have to prove it in court?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Wouldn't an investigation prove that you were not negligent if you had securely stored your weapon? I mean, isn't that what we are talking about? I assume police don't just randomly charge people with negligence without an investigation right? Then once charged, don;t they have to prove it in court?
You're missing that this is the baiting definitions game, where you ask your opponent to define a common term and then go "but you didn't say [insert contrived circumstances here] therefore your argument is wrong"
Tis a silly game
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
Yeah, that's not a realistic scenario in which you would be found criminally liable. it appears most states have laws about storing your firearms and penalties for not doing so.
Other s are indeed arguing for this strict liability level actually. not here may be,but definitely in other places.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
feeder wrote: I certainly support serious penalties for those whose improperly stored firearms are involved in a negligent or criminal shoot.
Define "negligently stored".
Many of the weapons used in mass shootings were locked up. Some in safes, some in cases with locks, some in locked rooms.
To which individuals who shouldn't have had access to them were able to get access.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If I have my guns locked up, and someone still breaks in, steals them, and kills someone I am NOT to blame.
Yeah, that's not a realistic scenario in which you would be found criminally liable. it appears most states have laws about storing your firearms and penalties for not doing so.
Other s are indeed arguing for this strict liability level actually. not here may be,but definitely in other places.
Exactly my point. I was wondering if this was going to be another "If someone can steal it, it wasn't secured enough" argument.
If a person has a problem with eating, it's a good idea not to stockpile biscuits in the pantry. This is an incredibly obvious thing. And yet with guns you pretend it isn't true, because you will not admit the reality about guns.
We have a high crime rate in the US. Even factoring out firearms related muders from the US and leavings firearm related deaths in the rest of Europe we still lead by a huge factor.
This is false. You believe false things. If you were to learn things that aren't false, you wouldn't be able to defend your gun position any more. And so I predict you will not learn correct things about US crime rates.
Your school shooting number is artificially inflated by including non- firearms related incidents
They are all incidents involving guns. You have claimed a false thing. It includes non-homicide incidents, like gun safety accidents, but of course those incidents are part of the cost of gun proliferation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SOFDC wrote: Off the chart as compared to?... Europe? Sure. Always have been. Even back when gun laws were roughly equivalent.
Gun laws were more similar, but rates of gun ownership were nothing alike. It isn't the laws, but the proliferation of guns that drives much higher murder rate. This is for a very simple and obvious reason - when something is likely to be near to hand, you will use it more often than when it is very rarely near to you.
People deny this because they are unwilling to admit that sometimes things you like have consequences, but things fething have consequences. I like pizza and I will still choose to eat it, but I'd be lying if I denied it was bad for me. This doesn't necessarily mean people should stop eating it, it doesn't necessarily mean society should encourage pizza makers to use healthier cheese, but it does mean that any honest conversation about pizza needs people to start with people accepting that pizza is not a health food.
The same for guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: In contrast we have a plethora of states in the Americas with stringent gun laws, and murder rates that would make Putin blanch.
Actually Russia has a murder rate almost triple the US. The US problem is bad, but its not 'wildly corrupt dictatorship with chronic problems with equality, justice and police corruption' bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: So basically it comes down yet again to the sociopath behind the tool, not the tool itself. Why didn't the Boston Bombing have the activist out pounding the street to limit access to pressure cookers and metal fasteners? We punished the person behind that attack, not Proctor and Gamble for making the pot or Grainger for making the bolts.
Because you balance the level of benefit of an item against the level of its harm. This is not something that should need to be explained.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/24 04:26:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That said you I won't debate the accuracy of the claim that firearms simply existing leads to incidents of their misuse simply because they're there to be misused, that's a point I'll concede, though there's little/no direct correlation between raw numbers and homicide rates within the US itself over time (overall deaths have declined even as we have more firearms available than ever, it's the shock incidents that have spiked).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/24 04:29:15
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
