Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the law in regards to threating a person with a firearm (legally held).

In terms of the arming teachers, would a teacher be open to being sued if they pulled the gun out to scare a kid for example?

Yes, absolutely.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

Also probably get sued if they didn't pull out the gun...funtimes ahead.

eire4

FatherTed wrote: »

Correct but as the gun lovers on here have said, adding insurance/taxes/licences fees etc on guns will infringe on their second amendment rights. They will take it to the supreme court and probably win because Trump is trying to stack the SC with very conservative judges. So we are fooked. That's why I keep saying the second amendment needs to be repealed.

You might be right that the gun nuts would take things like insurance requirements to the supreme court probably they would. However even though it might get shot down by the Republican controlled supreme court I think it is well worth going down this road. I think it is important to more and more put on record in a very public way exactly who is responsible for the continuing blood baths and murders of so many American children and shame them.

We have seen in recent days how the shaming of companies who financially support the NRA has resulted in a number of companies ending that support so I think any way that those who continue to oppose gun regulation are shown up in a very public way for their complicity in the mass killings is a good thing.

looksee

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/375620-pa-school-to-close-for-churchs-blessing-ceremony-involving-ar-15s

Children being removed from an elementary school next week because of a 'blessing of guns' in a nearby church. Church authorities have said they will ensure the guns are not loaded - which seems a bit odd, don't the bullets need a blessing too?

dr.fuzzenstein

looksee wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/375620-pa-school-to-close-for-churchs-blessing-ceremony-involving-ar-15s

Children being removed from an elementary school next week because of a 'blessing of guns' in a nearby church. Church authorities have said they will ensure the guns are not loaded - which seems a bit odd, don't the bullets need a blessing too?

'murica!

Manic Moran

Delaware Supreme Court had a look at a ban on firearms in State parks a couple months ago, the opinion just came across my desk, as it were. It ruled that the prohibition violated the right to bear arms for defense. The opinion, at the bottom of this link, looks at the history of firearms in the State, going back to the mid 1700s.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2017/12/08/gun-ban-delaware-state-parks-unconstitutional-high-court-rules/934091001/

Two observations:

1) Delaware is one of the 40+ States to have a right to arms in the State constitution. The court observed that they had no need to look at the Federal Second Amendment, their own State Constitution was quite sufficient (and very clear on the point). This is the sort of thing which a lot of folks commenting on the Federal 2A keep missing.

2) The lower court, which it reversed, observed that "the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area". The Supreme Court opined that "that conclusion is premised on the questionable notion, unsupported by reference to any evidence, that outlawing possession of a firearm in an area makes law-abiding citizens safer because criminals will, for some reason, obey the Regulations"

The second makes mention to a fairly important principle which is still being debated in the courts, called "standard of scrutiny". The most basic is called "rational basis", i.e., if there is some reasonable correlation between the stated goal of legislation and the legislation itself, it's permitted. This has been explicitly denied by SCOTUS, though which of the two higher levels (intermediate or strict) they want remains to be determined. (Pretty much anything in the bill of rights immediately defaults to one of the two higher). What's important here is that unlike rational basis, there is a burden of proof on the government to support its legislation: If there is a proposal to restrict something, the government has to show why the restriction is related to the goal.

At SCOTUS level, Justice Thomas issued an unusually scathing 14-page dissent on the Supreme Court's refusal to take up a new firearms case this week. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of
choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,” Heller, supra, at 634, I would have granted certiorari in this case [...] If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari.

He's not wrong. There is a very clear split in the circuit courts, and everyone knows that SCOTUS is going to have to take up the issue eventually. They are only delaying the inevitable, and in the meantime, a hodgepodge of interpretations are out there.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the sort of thing which a lot of folks commenting on the Federal 2A keep missing.

Well, not really. Depending on any theoretical re-draft or removal of the 2nd, all state constitutions would have to change to maintain legality with the federal constitution, no?

Manic Moran

I think it would depend very much on the re-write.

Bearing in mind this is fairly virgin territory. The Constitution grants specific authorizations to the Federal Government, but generally speaking, outside of those, it is more a limitation on what the federal government can’t do. Don’t forget the Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not specifically given to to the federal government to the States.

If the federal Constitution were to be amended to state “The manufacture, sale or possession of firearms is prohibited”, then , yes, that would be a superseding. However, that requires the votes of 3/4 of the States, and I am not sure if a State delegation can vote for something specifically in contravention of their own Constitutions, so such amendment may not possibly happen in the first place. I honestly don’t know of anyone has considered it.

The closest precedent was Prohibition, but there are at least two major and one minor differences. Firstly, prohibition said nothing about personal possession. If you had booze, you could keep it as long as you want. Unsure why this was the case. Maybe someone decided that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applied to Constitutional amendments. Secondly, there was no State right to booze. (Indeed a number of States already prohibited it). Thirdly, it is impossible to determine the location of manufacture of booze, which brings us to the current State-internal question, and particularly marijuana.

There is no doubting that the Feds prohibit marijuana for all uses. To the extent that they will target banks that hold money created by the marijuana trade. (Which is causing a new set of headaches in the States). There is also no doubting that despite this prohibition, the States don’t care, and it remains legal at the State and local level. This rather fuzzy situation seems to be despite current case law, Gonzales v Raich. This is the case where the Supreme Court decided that the Feds could restrict marijuana grown in California for use in California under the premise of commerce clause (I.e. interstate transactions). This was a split decision, and not along “party lines”, you had Thomas siding with O ‘Connor in the dissent, for example, and Alito with Breyer in the majority.

Raich made two relevant observations. First, that federal power was not unlimited with firearms, citing the Lopez case. That overruled the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (the Feds attempted to prohibit guns in schools) on the basis that carrying guns in schools bore no relevance to interstate commerce. The second was that the argument of “in California is for Californians” did not suffice, because it would be impossible for the Feds to determine if cannabis found was from California or some other State.

This led to a number of States passing a form of nullification law. Some, like Kansas’, were well out of bounds of reality: Kansas made it illegal for federal agents to enforce federal firearms law within the State. That didn’t get anywhere with the courts. Montana’s was a little more creative. It made clear that firearms and ammunition, clearly marked as “Made in Montana”, should not be subject to federal law within Montana. This got as far as the 9th Circuit, which held that markings or no markings, the firearms could cross State lines. I would be very curious to see how SCOTUS would take that in view of Raich. However, SCOTUS has been running from 2A cases, and this was no different, it refused to take up the appeal.

The last plan, being adopted by a few States is basically similar to the propositions put forward by sanctuary states with immigration enforcement. “We can’t stop your Federal Agents from enforcing federal firearms law to the best of your ability, but we are absolutely not going to co-operate or help”.

The last possibility, which would be particularly interesting, would be if the State itself started firearms manufacturing as a governmental service. Not sure the level of immunity.

Sweg

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

Brian?

Sweg wrote: »

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

Who wants to ban guns?

This straw man is trotted out repeatedly.

Leroy42

Sweg wrote: »

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

I totally agree. Luckily USA has by far the highest private ownership rates in the non-war world, and with it has the lowest crime rates.

Oh wait....

Manic Moran

I totally agree. Luckily USA has by far the highest private ownership rates in the non-war world, and with it has the lowest crime rates.

Disarming the law-abiding isn't likely to help lower the crime rates. Solution likely lies somewhere else.

Cruz apparently used limited-capacity magazines. I don't understand why, but the claim is that the standard 30s didn't fit in his bag well, so he just used tens.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Disarming the law-abiding isn't likely to help lower the crime rates. Solution likely lies somewhere else.

Cruz apparently used limited-capacity magazines. I don't understand why, but the claim is that the standard 30s didn't fit in his bag well, so he just used tens.

I was replying to a post that suggested that taking away guns would leave people defenceless against the criminals.

The crime rates do not back this assertion up. Crime rates, based on that argument, should be much lower in the US than other countries but they are not.

So people need to remove this fear that criminals are waiting to ambush them. In the main, most criminals want cash, goods. They don't want to be gunning people down.

So make an argument for guns of you wish, but lower crime rates is not one of them.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Who wants to ban guns?

This straw man is trotted out repeatedly.

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

I was replying to a post that suggested that taking away guns would leave people defenceless against the criminals.

The crime rates do not back this assertion up. Crime rates, based on that argument, should be much lower in the US than other countries but they are not.

So people need to remove this fear that criminals are waiting to ambush them. In the main, most criminals want cash, goods. They don't want to be gunning people down.

So make an argument for guns of you wish, but lower crime rates is not one of them.

These aren't mutually exclusive. Crime rates can be low, as they are now, and one can still worry about being defenseless against an armed criminal.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

They they mean banning all guns, not many people are advocating that.

Is that the real fear, that by giving even an inch the creep will start and eventually all guns will be gone? Because that seems to be part of the thinking of the NRA. Don't allow any movement on age etc as it is the slippery slope.

So we just have to put up with the death and destruction for fear of what may happen in the future.

Even the debate is allowed to centre just on the number who are killed. The last school shooting resulted in 17 dead, but how many were terrorised? Hundreds I would say. Including teachers. But it is a price worth paying to allow people to have military grade weapons.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These aren't mutually exclusive. Crime rates can be low, as they are now, and one can still worry about being defenseless against an armed criminal.

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

Perhaps, as you say, it's hard to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the fact is criminals do utilise guns, so in my efforts to protect my family, I would be remiss if I didn't take appropriate steps to counter that threat.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

They they mean banning all guns, not many people are advocating that.

Is that the real fear, that by giving even an inch the creep will start and eventually all guns will be gone? Because that seems to be part of the thinking of the NRA. Don't allow any movement on age etc as it is the slippery slope.

So we just have to put up with the death and destruction for fear of what may happen in the future.

Even the debate is allowed to centre just on the number who are killed. The last school shooting resulted in 17 dead, but how many were terrorised? Hundreds I would say. Including teachers. But it is a price worth paying to allow people to have military grade weapons.

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

Burn that straw man! BURN HIM!


No one is talking about banning guns. Some people are talking about new restrictions on certain guns. Come on.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

“It’s the thin end of the wedge, it’s an attack on our 2nd amendment rights”. How come you don’t have the same view of restrictions on fully auto weapons?

Or flamethrowers





Or surface to air missiles.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps, as you say, it's hard to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the fact is criminals do utilise guns, so in my efforts to protect my family, I would be remiss if I didn't take appropriate steps to counter that threat.

I don't have to prove a negative, the statistics already tell the story. I merely pointed out that there is the possibility that the guns have reduced the rate below that which it would be, but that is for gun advocates to prove, since that is what part of their argument is based on.

My argument is that having all these guns makes no difference to the crime rate, a position backed up by the fact that US crime rates are no lower than other countries with much lower gun ownership levels.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

So you think that laws should only ever be brought in and left as is, if there is any possibility of movement then the law should be rejected? So you are against speed limits, or drinking age, or what amount age of consent?

Of course it is a concern of any citizen about law creep, but that is the job of the citizens to hold the politicians to account. But it doesn't mean that no laws should ever be brought in.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Burn that straw man! BURN HIM!


No one is talking about banning guns. Some people are talking about new restrictions on certain guns. Come on.

Are you being serious right now? I consider you a solid contributor to threads from experience, but I can't believe you would be this deliberately obtuse. Multiple folks in this thread and elsewhere in the greater media have openly stated a desire to ban "assault rifles, semi auto rifles, all guns in general.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't have to prove a negative, the statistics already tell the story. I merely pointed out that there is the possibility that the guns have reduced the rate below that which it would be, but that is for gun advocates to prove, since that is what part of their argument is based on.

My argument is that having all these guns makes no difference to the crime rate, a position backed up by the fact that US crime rates are no lower than other countries with much lower gun ownership levels.



So you think that laws should only ever be brought in and left as is, if there is any possibility of movement then the law should be rejected? So you are against speed limits, or drinking age, or what amount age of consent?

Of course it is a concern of any citizen about law creep, but that is the job of the citizens to hold the politicians to account. But it doesn't mean that no laws should ever be brought in.

I'm not against any new laws when it comes to firearms. I am absolutely against banning semi auto rifles. I don't know how many different ways I could say the same thing.

And at the end of the day, if new laws were passed to change the 2nd or introduce such a ban, I would follow it, being law abiding and all.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

This argument is exclusively at the macro level, however. Basically, you're playing the odds. If the chances of being on the receiving end of crime are less than X per 100,000 citizens, then all is good, and the assessment ends. Any crimes committed on citizens are just their misfortune, and they are limited as to what they can do about it.

Where we see a difference between the American attitude and the British/Irish one, however, is that the Americans continue on to the next question. "If I am one of those 12 per 100,000 citizens (Insert number here), then what?" Possession of lawful firearms has not been particularly proven to adjust crime rates up or down in the US at the macro scale. I'm quite happy to stipulate to this. At the micro scale, however, in the case of "I am the individual currently at the shop when someone decides to conduct an armed robbery", or "I am the individual at home when someone breaks in", the chances of a positive outcome for the crime victim are higher, especially when the victim in question is not of the typical demographic of the criminal (i.e., healthy, strong, young male). It is certainly not a guarantee of a positive outcome, but when society maths has failed and you have fallen victim to the odds, at least there's a viable backup plan. Especially in places where the local cop can take a while to get to you.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

This argument is exclusively at the macro level, however. Basically, you're playing the odds. If the chances of being on the receiving end of crime are less than X per 100,000 citizens, then all is good, and the assessment ends. Any crimes committed on citizens are just their misfortune, and they are limited as to what they can do about it.

Well of course they are the macro level, it would be impossible to draft any laws when every persons individual view had to met. Unfortunately, there is no way to fully negate all crime, there are just some people who won't abide by the rules, by the statistics simply do not back up the assertion that having guns is making any difference. The odds on meeting resistance in the US by a gun owner is far higher than in other countries yet it doesn't seem to reduce the level of crime, yet it is only in the US that people feel scared enough to warrant the free use of weapons by everyone.

It is unhealthy, and I would would say, impossible, to live any other way. The odds of the plane crashing are low, but it could happen. So why does anyone fly,or drive, or cross the street, or eat bacon, or drink, or smoke or....

Manic Moran wrote: »

Where we see a difference between the American attitude and the British/Irish one, however, is that the Americans continue on to the next question. "If I am one of those 12 per 100,000 citizens (Insert number here), then what?" Possession of lawful firearms has not been particularly proven to adjust crime rates up or down in the US at the macro scale. I'm quite happy to stipulate to this. At the micro scale, however, in the case of "I am the individual currently at the shop when someone decides to conduct an armed robbery", or "I am the individual at home when someone breaks in", the chances of a positive outcome for the crime victim are higher, especially when the victim in question is not of the typical demographic of the criminal (i.e., healthy, strong, young male). It is certainly not a guarantee of a positive outcome, but when society maths has failed and you have fallen victim to the odds, at least there's a viable backup plan. Especially in places where the local cop can take a while to get to you.

So even though the statistics do not back up this assertion you want to bring it down to the individual level. OK. Lets look at this logically then.

I totally agree that there is fear of being caught up in crime, that exists everywhere, to greater or lessor extent. So lets consider the scenario.

You want everyone to be able to access any type of firearm on the basis that at some point they may be faced with a criminal. So they first need to be caught up in the event, they then need to be not caught by surprise, have access to the gun, not have the criminal demand the gun (which they would as they will think you have one), and then if all of this is true, to be able fashion a situation where you get a chance to take a shot at the perp.

And the price for all this? Criminals come into situations (on which they have the element of surprise) knowing that they need to be armed and prepared to shoot. You have the massive number of shooting accidents every year. The large number of questionable shootings by police officers who are, in many cases, in constant fear of the person they just stopped having access to a firearm. The almost daily school shootings. Attacks such as the Orlando nightclub, Las Vegas, Texas church.

So, in a nutshell, you are prepared so all these people, and countless others into the future, including all those that may that are injured and traumatised, on the basis that you should be prepared for an event that may never happen and even if it does statistically the outcomes are no different.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are you being serious right now? I consider you a solid contributor to threads from experience, but I can't believe you would be this deliberately obtuse. Multiple folks in this thread and elsewhere in the greater media have openly stated a desire to ban "assault rifles, semi auto rifles, all guns in general.

I am being 100% sincere, if a little light hearted in my response.

Banning all guns in the US is simply not under discussion.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

The "thin end of a wedge" argument? It's exactly the argument use to whip up hysteria and block ANY gun law reform.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

The "thin end of a wedge" argument? It's exactly the argument use to whip up hysteria and block ANY gun law reform.

You say it's not on the table, but other posters in this thread and activists in the US have openly stated such desires, repeatedly. I don't consider the idea of banning semi auto rifles as some sort of compromise either, nor an idea that would have any meaningful impact on reducing deaths.

Anti-gun folks want a spectacular win, so to speak. A repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban or something similar. There is a strong chance of passing laws that could gain consensus and have an positive outcome. Better background checks, education, policing initiatives, and most fundamentally, improving mental health care.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You say it's not on the table, but other posters in this thread and activists in the US have openly stated such desires, repeatedly. I don't consider the idea of banning semi auto rifles as some sort of compromise either, nor an idea that would have any meaningful impact on reducing deaths.

Anti-gun folks want a spectacular win, so to speak. A repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban or something similar. There is a strong chance of passing laws that could gain consensus and have an positive outcome. Better background checks, education, policing initiatives, and most fundamentally, improving mental health care.

You have entirely created this 'thin edge of the wedge' stuff yourself in order to create an enemy to fight against.

As I said earlier, that argument could be taken to stop any law. Why allow speed limits, they'll only lower them? Why ban some drugs, they'll ban everything soon. Why have an age of consent, sure they'll outlaw sex in total soon.

Its a nonsense, another ungrounded fear. For such a brave and free country they live in perpetual fear of the future.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

You have entirely created this 'thin edge of the wedge' stuff yourself in order to create an enemy to fight against.

As I said earlier, that argument could be taken to stop any law. Why allow speed limits, they'll only lower them? Why ban some drugs, they'll ban everything soon. Why have an age of consent, sure they'll outlaw sex in total soon.

Its a nonsense, another ungrounded fear. For such a brave and free country they live in perpetual fear of the future.

This is a very specific issue, with a documented history of actions taken and pursued by the anti-gun side. California is an example of this.

Would you say the same thing to a Pro choice advocate who was railing against an attempt to impose limitations on Planned Parenthood, or time limits for abortion access?

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This is a very specific issue, with a documented history of actions taken and pursued by the anti-gun side. California is an example of this.

Would you say the same thing to a Pro choice advocate who was railing against an attempt to impose limitations on Planned Parenthood, or time limits for abortion access?

It is a very specific to you, not in a overall view of how legislation works.

I would ask anyone, pro-choice included, to back up their stance with facts. The fact is that despite a massive, an increasing amount, of gun in the US, the opposite of what is claimed is happening. Crime rates are not lower, deaths from guns is many multiples of other countries.

But if the argument was that God told them, or they just don't like it, would carry no weight with me. There are plenty of things that are allowed/unlawful for which I do not necessarily agree but I can understand the reason.

For example, I feel that I am a great driver, my car is well maintained and has the ability to drive very fast. But I understand that the streets are not my racetrack and as such I need to take account of that.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You say it's not on the table, but other posters in this thread and activists in the US have openly stated such desires, repeatedly. I don't consider the idea of banning semi auto rifles as some sort of compromise either, nor an idea that would have any meaningful impact on reducing deaths.

Anti-gun folks want a spectacular win, so to speak. A repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban or something similar. There is a strong chance of passing laws that could gain consensus and have an positive outcome. Better background checks, education, policing initiatives, and most fundamentally, improving mental health care.

What activists in the US want to ban all guns?

Leroy42

A 13-year-old girl has died after allegedly being shot in the back of the head by her nine-year-old brother because she refused to give him a video game controller, according to authorities in Monroe County, Mississippi.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mississippi-shooting-9-year-old-shoots-sister-video-game-argument-a8263531.html

Another shooting within a family, involving children.

I know this could come across as bad taste, but given the lengths that gun advocates are prepared to go to ignore all the evidence I'm going to go ahead anyway.

I am sure that shortly we will be let know that this boy had mental issues (obviously because of the computer game) and I would not be surprised if the NRA don't come out to say that this wouldn't have happened if the girl had a gun.

You know, maybe, just maybe, having guns around is not the best option!

Manic Moran

Or, maybe, idiot parents. This parent left a gun where an irresponsible kid could get it. That parent didn't put a socket cover on the electical outlet and his kid shoved a hairpin in it. The other parent didn't put a fence up around his pool and the kid drowned in it.

Whatever happened to parental responsibility?

Leroy42

Ah, deflection. Not unexpected.

Who said anything about it not being the parents responsibility? No-one. But as usual, lets find something else to talk about rather than wondering why a gun was there in the first place.

But I actually agree. Maybe we should only let people own guns when they have shown they are responsible enough to own them.

What would that entail to you think?

Also, the gun should of course be locked up, away from the ammunition. If only there was some way that you would require a key, code or finger print to engage the gun. But then that would involve the gun manufacturers actually taking some responsibility.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or, maybe, idiot parents. This parent left a gun where an irresponsible kid could get it. That parent didn't put a socket cover on the electical outlet and his kid shoved a hairpin in it. The other parent didn't put a fence up around his pool and the kid drowned in it.

Whatever happened to parental responsibility?

Sorry but how are you supposed to stop a bad kid with a gun? Only a good kid with a gun can do that.

The parents ought to be arrested for failing to arm their deceased child.

Hitman3000

Manic Moran wrote:

Or, maybe, idiot parents. This parent left a gun where an irresponsible kid could get it. That parent didn't put a socket cover on the electical outlet and his kid shoved a hairpin in it. The other parent didn't put a fence up around his pool and the kid drowned in it.

Deflect, deflect, rinse and repeat.

Nate--IRL--

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Sorry but how are you supposed to stop a bad kid with a gun? Only a good kid with a gun can do that.

The parents ought to be arrested for failing to arm their deceased child.

I actually burst out laughing at that - I'm going to hell

Nate

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, deflection. Not unexpected.

Who said anything about it not being the parents responsibility? No-one. But as usual, lets find something else to talk about rather than wondering why a gun was there in the first place.

I did ask why the gun was there in the first place. Why was it where the kid could reach it? The kid presumably didn't buy it.

Yet look at the posts above. Jibes like "Give the younger kid a gun as well". "Mental issues." "Video games". All completely sarcastic commentary aimed at provided an emphasis on a chosen line of thought relating to the prevalence of firearms, when in all cases, what it really is is a failure in being a responsible parent. And, to my knowledge, nobody on the pro-gun side has even contemplated saying such things as those.

But no, it's easier to say "Ah, deflection, as expected". No, it's not deflection if it's pointing directly at the root problem of this issue.

Many children die due to parental failures. More kids under 14 die due to swimming pools than firearms. But we don't post stupid sarcastic comments about swimming pool deaths involving unsupervised children, even though the root cause is exactly the same: Parents who do not take suitable precautions for the safety of their children.

Also, the gun should of course be locked up, away from the ammunition. If only there was some way that you would require a key, code or finger print to engage the gun. But then that would involve the gun manufacturers actually taking some responsibility.

Rubbish. My firearms are locked away, and my loaded pistol is behind a fingerprint lock. That has nothing to do with the firearms manufacturer, that's got to do with me choosing to lock away my pistol because I have a pre-teen daughter as a responsible parent.

Leroy42

It is deflection. You are so scared of even touching on any thing that might involve removing guns that your first thought is to blame something else. What are the laws in Mississippi around storing personal weapons in the house?

Sure swimming pools drowning cause death, but what levels? If a kid jumps into a pool when a parent isn't watching will they always die? What about if a kid gets their hands on the gun? You are back to the usual "well people die in cars everyday, ban them" nonsense.

I have no idea why the gun was there, but I can bet you anything that if it wasn't there in the 1st place that little girl would be alive.

And the reason people like me are trotting out what you call sarcastic is because that is the usual, and you have gone and created another one, blame the parents. Do I blame the parents, yes, for starters for having the gun in the first place with children in the house. The parents should be held criminally responsible.

And you're right, many kids die to parental failures. And I wish we could do something about all of them. I hate to see neglected children, children of drug or other substances addicts etc. But we are never going to get to a situation of forced sterilisation.

So we do what we can. So lets look at you logic. You blame idiot parents. So do you envisage a test before parents can buy guns? Education, enforcement etc.

All guns should be locked away if children are in a house, or could be in the house (uncles, grandparents etc). All guns should have locks fitted to them so that they can't be accidentally fired or fired by anyone other than the owner. You suggest that it is technically possible so why not mandate it? A buy back of older guns that cannot be upgraded, funded by the manufacturers. If they can't remove their licence to sell.

jobbridge4life

Manic, I am genuinely caught between sympathy for you and revulsion. Then I remember reality and I realise what you are defending and I feel sickened.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I did ask why the gun was there in the first place. Why was it where the kid could reach it? The kid presumably didn't buy it.

Yet look at the posts above. Jibes like "Give the younger kid a gun as well". "Mental issues." "Video games". All completely sarcastic commentary aimed at provided an emphasis on a chosen line of thought relating to the prevalence of firearms, when in all cases, what it really is is a failure in being a responsible parent. And, to my knowledge, nobody on the pro-gun side has even contemplated saying such things as those.

The President literally summoned gaming heads to the White House in response to a school shooting. The NRA advocate for the arming of teachers in schools.

Manic Moran wrote: »

But no, it's easier to say "Ah, deflection, as expected". No, it's not deflection if it's pointing directly at the root problem of this issue.

The 'root problem' is the incredible and shameful abundance of deadly weapons in the US. If you ever lived in this country, I am horrified by your capacity to lie to yourself. You and the US population at large are sacrificing your children so you can keep your dick replacements. I don't pity ye, I revile ye.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Many children die due to parental failures. More kids under 14 die due to swimming pools than firearms. But we don't post stupid sarcastic comments about swimming pool deaths involving unsupervised children, even though the root cause is exactly the same: Parents who do not take suitable precautions for the safety of their children.

1300 children die every year from guns in the USA. 1300. That you would in any way try and deflect from that is shameful. It is disgusting. You personally should be ashamed.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Rubbish. My firearms are locked away, and my loaded pistol is behind a fingerprint lock. That has nothing to do with the firearms manufacturer, that's got to do with me choosing to lock away my pistol because I have a pre-teen daughter as a responsible parent.

I hope and pray you don't become one of the countless statistics.

Manic Moran

California has a law which basically states that if a parent leaves a firearm where a child can access it, and the child then goes and does something illegal with the firearm, the parent is held responsible and is charged. That seems to me to be a fairly reasonable compromise between a criminal repercussion of poor parenting (whether anyone dies or not), the role of parental judgement, and the practical reality of compliance with and enforcement of the law. I have no problem with this law. It holds parents responsible for... egads... parenting correctly.

Jobbridge, I appreciate your thoughts and prayers
I, also, hope I do not become a statistic. I'm not relying on prayer, though...

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

California has a law which basically states that if a parent leaves a firearm where a child can access it, and the child then goes and does something illegal with the firearm, the parent is held responsible and is charged. That seems to me to be a fairly reasonable compromise between a criminal repercussion of poor parenting (whether anyone dies or not), the role of parental judgement, and the practical reality of compliance with and enforcement of the law. I have no problem with this law. It holds parents responsible for... egads... parenting correctly.

Cool, I am sure the parents of the next round of children to be shot down in their classrooms or running screaming through their school corridors can rest easily knowing someone is going to prison.

Do you actually read the things you write?

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

Jobbridge, I appreciate your thoughts and prayers
I, also, hope I do not become a statistic. I'm not relying on prayer, though...

You literally are. You literally have decided that your capacity to own weapons of death is worth taking a roll of dice on your children's lives. Disgusting.

Hitman3000

Manic Moran wrote:

California has a law which basically states that if a parent leaves a firearm where a child can access it, and the child then goes and does something illegal with the firearm, the parent is held responsible and is charged. That seems to me to be a fairly reasonable compromise between a criminal repercussion of poor parenting (whether anyone dies or not), the role of parental judgement, and the practical reality of compliance with and enforcement of the law. I have no problem with this law. It holds parents responsible for... egads... parenting correctly.

If the parents haven't guns........

the_syco

jobbridge4life wrote: »

1300 children die every year from guns in the USA. 1300. That you would in any way try and deflect from that is shameful. It is disgusting. You personally should be ashamed.

Saw that some kid shot another kid over a video game. The kid got the weapon as it wasn't properly secured away. The amount of stupid people who leave their guns lying around is horrifying! I wonder would the NRA mind if a law went in that would jail those who don't put their guns out of reach of their kids?

Manic Moran

You literally are. You literally have decided that your capacity to own weapons of death is worth taking a roll of dice on your children's lives. Disgusting.

Choosing not to own a firearm is also taking a roll of the dice, it is merely a different roll.

My problem with your line of thinking is that it presumes that no good can come of a firearm in the house. I disagree. As long as you do not accept that there is any possible good which can come of firearms ownership, then there is no way you can come to an understanding of my position. Not an agreement, an understanding.

FWIW, to answer your earlier comment, I was raised mainly in Ireland, moved to the US at age 25. When I moved initially, I had something of an Irish perspective on firearms (Only Army, Police, sort of thing). My position changed over time after living here, I do believe the American perspective has much to merit it in the American context.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

Choosing not to own a firearm is also taking a roll of the dice, it is merely a different roll.

My problem with your line of thinking is that it presumes that no good can come of a firearm in the house. I disagree. As long as you do not accept that there is any possible good which can come of firearms ownership, then there is no way you can come to an understanding of my position. Not an agreement, an understanding.

FWIW, to answer your earlier comment, I was raised mainly in Ireland, moved to the US at age 25. When I moved initially, I had something of an Irish perspective on firearms (Only Army, Police, sort of thing). My position changed over time after living here, I do believe the American perspective has much to merit it in the American context.

Funny, it is only in the American context that children are regularly slaughtered in the classrooms. You've made your choice. You've chosen to subject your children to that threat. Enjoy your guns.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Choosing not to own a firearm is also taking a roll of the dice, it is merely a different roll.

Which roll would that be?

If it is this oft use line that you need it for protection that I refer you again to the crime levels in the US which are not less than other civilised countries (I use that term in light of war torn countries).

So it isn't that. So why do you think you need a gun in your house, a house where their are children, which by their very nature are curious?

You have used this irresponsible parents line again. What is your solution, given that it is impossible to police all parents all the time?

You have mentioned that you lock your guns away and have fingerprint lock. So why don't you advocate this for everyone, make it mandatory?

And if you have them locked away, what are you going to do if your are attacked? Or do you reckon they will give you advance notice?

There are no statistics that back up the claim regarding home invasion. SO we can park that.

If its for target practice/hunting then there should be no issue with locking them away and having fingerprint locks.

If see you ignored my suggestion of fingerprint locks as mandatory. Make the manufacturers pay to retrofit or replace (or use taxpayers money if it will help). Every gun would therefore be specific to a single owner. Children couldn't 'play' with them.

But I agree with the earlier poster. The constant refrain from gun advocates that it is everything else to blame but the gun. Arm teachers, lock away guns, education etc.

Great why not simply start at source. Why have to bring in all these processes, at significant cost, when removing the guns achieve far better outcomes? And saves lives.

All these gun owners that come on with their smug "should have been more responsible" stuff. That's all well and good but do you ever let you kids out? How do you know their parents are as responsible as you? Do you vet them?