Gun Control in the US

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I do believe the American perspective has much to merit it in the American context.

Go on then. What is this great context that allows the acceptance of the so many deaths?

Melodeon

Just by way of clarification, when MM mentions a 'fingerprint safe' I'm pretty sure he's talking about this sort of thing:


It's a secure lock-box that allows a person very quick access to their PPW without the need to fiddle with keys or combinations, but restricts access to anyone else.

Brian?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Go on then. What is this great context that allows the acceptance of the so many deaths?

I’m pretty sure it’s the “kill or be killed” mentality.

The narrative is:

The USA is so awash with firearms you can’t be safe without being armed anymore

The irony being that the vast majority of illegal firearms were originally obtained legally.

My favorite anti gun control argument is the “look at Chicago” argument. Chicago has tough gun laws but a high rate of gun crime, ergo gun laws don’t work. Might be valid if there was a hard border around Chicago that checked travelers for firearms. There isn’t though, firearms can be driven in on the back seat of a car.

spacecoyote

Another school shooting today in Maryland:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43474309

Hitman3000

spacecoyote wrote:

Another shooting today in Maryland:

Getting boring at this stage.

2 Scoops

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

What are the gun laws like in Brazil?

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearly-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws

From this article it says these are requirements

— a fixed address

— proof of legitimate income

— no criminal record

— a mental health test

— proof you know how to handle a gun and shoot it

— evidence of why you need a gun. For example, a police report of an attack against you

Yet it has 60,000 murders a year. Strict gun laws won't change anything as evident in places like Chicago. The moral outrage won't change it either.

Tabnabs

spacecoyote wrote: »

Another school shooting today in Maryland:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43474309

Shooter shot by an armed staff member. Huh...

frag420

Plug and socket - designed to provide electricity to household items such as tv's, kettles etc.

Hairpin - designed to keep hair tidy

Swimming pools - designed for leisure purposes and fun!

Guns - designed to kill fellow humans!

CAN YOU NOT SEE THE STUPIDITY IN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING????

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?

Hitman3000

Tabnabs wrote:

Shooter shot by an armed staff member. Huh...

Armed teacher shoots and injuries 3 highschool students in Monterey California during a gun safety demostrastion. Huh....

Hitman3000

frag420 wrote:

CAN YOU NOT SEE THE STUPIDITY IN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING????

Don't waste your time.

jobbridge4life

2 Scoops wrote: »

What are the gun laws like in Brazil?

Right well you've had to resort to comparing the United States of America with a developing country Brazil, one with serious and endemic poverty and drug related violence. You've pretty much just won the argument for those who criticize the USA's gun laws. Cheers.

Meanwhile gun homicide rates in the US are 25.2 times the rate in other in other high income countries.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Strict gun laws won't change anything as evident in places like Chicago. The moral outrage won't change it either.

Except for when it did in Australia and the United Kingdom. The Chicago excuse is a well busted myth, the guns that kill in Chicago come from its neighbouring states, some of which have the dumbest gun laws in the US.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

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).

I'm unsure I follow the logic there. I do not claim that widespread firearms ownership raises or lowers overall crime levels. There is a statistical chance that I will find myself facing a hostile person, whatever that number is. That's your die roll, and it is entirely out of my hands. What is not out of my hands, however, is what I can do about it once the number comes up.

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?

My child (or children, in about three months) is the most important thing to me. I intend to take every reasonable measure to protect them against all threats, and firearms are one such measure. Yes, children are curious and careless. Ergo, I do not leave firearms, knives, power tools, or anything else with which they can obviously do harm lying around where they can reach them.

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

An education campaign seems to me to provide the most likely course of success.

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?

Mandatory locking has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, in Heller. "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Laws requiring that firearms be locked to some extent when the owner is out of the house seems to pass muster. Otherwise, it comes down to a personal decision on reliability vs risk, as there is no security technology which is completely reliable. If there are no children in the house, for example, and I live alone, why must I have the weapon locked when I'm at home?

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.

At a rough estimate, that's $4.6bn to issue one fingerprint lockbox (Thank you for the alternate term, Melodeon) to each gun-owning household. It's actually not a bad idea, and it's not something utterly unaffordable to the US government. Not that one can be forced to use it, and it doesn't cover all the firearms, or larger weapons like rifles, but at least it's an option available to the household should they, like me, decide that on balance it's the better solution to their situation. They are more likely to use it if they already have it, after all. Of course, there is no way for the US government to know which households have firearms, so with about 126million households to cover, that's about $13bn to issue one per.

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.

Guns are inanimate. Why blame inanimate objects for misuse? There is no other piece of hardware I can think of which gets blamed in a similar manner. We do issue lots of regulations to ensure that things like cars or airplanes or water pipes or electronics or basically anything else perform their intended function more safely or more effectively, and I have no issue with regulations on firearms to perform a similar effect, but our solution to, say, reduce DUI is not to ban cars, or alcohol, but to make a cultural change to reduce incidents of misuse, and law enforcement to catch and punish the remainder.

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.

One need not go further than to observe that you're not going to remove 300 million firearms from the US, or even a significant portion of them, even if there were some legal framework in which that were possible. Which there is not.

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?

That actually is recommended practice. Example. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-witte/playdates-and-guns-in-the_b_10659468.html

The follow-on is to keep things simple for the child. My daughter has a fairly healthy respect for firearms (Too much so, IMO, she's afraid of them). My instructions to her are simple: If she sees a gun, leave the room immediately, find an adult. No more complicated for her to remember than "Stranger Danger" and "you're not my daddy."

Guns - designed to kill fellow humans!

Yes, they are. Wouldn't be much use to me if they weren't. Murder is wrong. Killing is not, when appropriate. We all admit that, even in Ireland, why else do we let the government have guns?

The Chicago excuse is a well busted myth, the guns that kill in Chicago come from its neighbouring states, some of which have the dumbest gun laws in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

If that were the sole factor, would not the neighboring states have higher rates of gun violence? Maryland and Virginia are both far lower than DC. Of the five states bordering Illinois, only one (Missouri) has a higher rate. The absolute lowest? The Live Free or Die State of New Hampshire, where one needs no permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

If that were the sole factor, would not the neighboring states have higher rates of gun violence? Maryland and Virginia are both far lower than DC. Of the five states bordering Illinois, only one (Missouri) has a higher rate. The absolute lowest? The Live Free or Die State of New Hampshire, where one needs no permit to carry a concealed firearm.

No one said it was the sole factor. The crime rate in Chicago is caused by a myriad of social issues. These social issues are exacerbated by the ease of bringing firearms into the city.

Nothing on this issue is black and white, it stretches credulity that you'd try to make this point.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

No one said it was the sole factor. The crime rate in Chicago is caused by a myriad of social issues. These social issues are exacerbated by the ease of bringing firearms into the city.

Nothing on this issue is black and white, it stretches credulity that you'd try to make this point.

I don't disagree with anything you say (Barring the last phrase, as I didn't bring up the Chicago analogy in the first place). But if Chicago has social issues, and as I say, I agree with you that it does, let Chicago sort out their social issues. Hasn't got much to do with neighboring Iowa.

weisses

17 school shootings so far this year in the US ...... that second amendment is doing wonders for the children over there

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm unsure I follow the logic there. I do not claim that widespread firearms ownership raises or lowers overall crime levels. There is a statistical chance that I will find myself facing a hostile person, whatever that number is. That's your die roll, and it is entirely out of my hands. What is not out of my hands, however, is what I can do about it once the number comes up.

Right so based on nothing more than paranoia, you think it is useful to allow every citizen to arm themselves on the unknown risk of somebody attacking them in their home. With the not unexpected outcome that many people will die from accidents etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

My child (or children, in about three months) is the most important thing to me.

Congratulations.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I intend to take every reasonable measure to protect them against all threats, and firearms are one such measure. Yes, children are curious and careless. Ergo, I do not leave firearms, knives, power tools, or anything else with which they can obviously do harm lying around where they can reach them.

But by protecting them from an unquantifiable threat you are bring a statistically large threat into your home. I can be pretty certain that the vast amount of these accidents happen to people who felt they had everything in place, had talked to their kids etc etc. Nobody sets out for this to happen.

Manic Moran wrote: »

An education campaign seems to me to provide the most likely course of success.

Removing the sale of guns would be better. But if by education you mean a campaign to explain that people don't need guns then I agree with you. If you mean that studies should be undertaken at a national level, with comparison to other countries to try to understand why guns are so destructive in the US then I am all in. If by education you mean that the statistics are shown for what they are. The number of deaths. The number of injuries. The number of people terrorised by shooting incidents, then yes I agree.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Mandatory locking has already been addressed by the Supreme Court, in Heller. "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

The Supreme court is always open to review. Hence why the abortion debate has never been settled. I always love this from gun advocates that one the supreme court rules in their favour then all bets are off. I do not know the details of the case, but it all depends on exactly what was sought. Surely there is a way, in an era where I can use my fingerprint to activate my phone, for fingerprints to be utilised on a gun that doesn't negate the "core lawful purpose of self-defense"?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Laws requiring that firearms be locked to some extent when the owner is out of the house seems to pass muster. Otherwise, it comes down to a personal decision on reliability vs risk, as there is no security technology which is completely reliable. If there are no children in the house, for example, and I live alone, why must I have the weapon locked when I'm at home?

So that if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun they cannot use it themselves. You place a lock on your phone don't you. You have an immobiliser on your car. You can cancel your bank cards. Why not use the same thinking with guns? It would also have a big effect on criminals getting their hands on guns, so its a win win.

Manic Moran wrote: »

At a rough estimate, that's $4.6bn to issue one fingerprint lockbox (Thank you for the alternate term, Melodeon) to each gun-owning household. It's actually not a bad idea, and it's not something utterly unaffordable to the US government. Not that one can be forced to use it, and it doesn't cover all the firearms, or larger weapons like rifles, but at least it's an option available to the household should they, like me, decide that on balance it's the better solution to their situation. They are more likely to use it if they already have it, after all. Of course, there is no way for the US government to know which households have firearms, so with about 126million households to cover, that's about $13bn to issue one per.

As a rough estimate, what do you think the costs of all the school shootings in the last twenty odd years have cost the US? The medical costs, trauma treatment, psychology, extra security on campus, training the teachers etc etc. Costs doesn't seem to be an issue.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Guns are inanimate. Why blame inanimate objects for misuse? There is no other piece of hardware I can think of which gets blamed in a similar manner. We do issue lots of regulations to ensure that things like cars or airplanes or water pipes or electronics or basically anything else perform their intended function more safely or more effectively, and I have no issue with regulations on firearms to perform a similar effect, but our solution to, say, reduce DUI is not to ban cars, or alcohol, but to make a cultural change to reduce incidents of misuse, and law enforcement to catch and punish the remainder.

I am not blaming them for the misuse, am am blaming the owners of them for their proper use. We regulate that objects are used for the purpose they were created. But we place limits on them. We have speed limits, and age restrictions on alcohol. Kids are not allowed alcohol, but no such restriction exists for guns. When drivers fail to observe the laws they are fined or lose their licence, you don't even need a licence to own a gun. And the gun lobby are against any and all restrictions.

Manic Moran wrote: »

One need not go further than to observe that you're not going to remove 300 million firearms from the US, or even a significant portion of them, even if there were some legal framework in which that were possible. Which there is not.

You don't need to. Look at the Australian example. They haven't had a mass shooting since. Did they remove every gun from the country? No. But you make a start. You stop selling more guns, you stop making the problem worse. I am always surprised that a country that landed on the moon, that split the atom, that is planning on trips to Mars, thinks this is a problem outside of its ability to solve. Even more so since other countries, such as Australia and the UK, have already shown it is possible.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The follow-on is to keep things simple for the child. My daughter has a fairly healthy respect for firearms (Too much so, IMO, she's afraid of them). My instructions to her are simple: If she sees a gun, leave the room immediately, find an adult. No more complicated for her to remember than "Stranger Danger" and "you're not my daddy."

Well it is no surprise she is scared of guns, you have told her just how dangerous they are. Have you told her tun away from swimming pools, cars, electric drills. No of course not, yet only a few paragraphs back you were trying to lump them all together.

You know why you have told her this? Because you know how dangerous they can be.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If that were the sole factor, would not the neighboring states have higher rates of gun violence? Maryland and Virginia are both far lower than DC. Of the five states bordering Illinois, only one (Missouri) has a higher rate. The absolute lowest? The Live Free or Die State of New Hampshire, where one needs no permit to carry a concealed firearm.

As already mentioned, of course guns are not the only issue, any more than drugs are the sole issue for cime. But why add to the mix? Why would the rest of the US not be inclined to try to help Chicago? Its called the United States not the "not my problem mate" states.

At the very least the neighbouring states should be bringing in state only sales, mandatory identification, police sign off etc.

the_syco

Leroy42 wrote: »

You know why you have told her this?

Because he's a responsible gun owner.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you say (Barring the last phrase, as I didn't bring up the Chicago analogy in the first place). But if Chicago has social issues, and as I say, I agree with you that it does, let Chicago sort out their social issues. Hasn't got much to do with neighboring Iowa.

Just checking but you do know I assume that Iowa is on the opposite side of Illinois to Chicago.

Leroy42

the_syco wrote: »

Because he's a responsible gun owner.

No, its because he is a responsible parent. Are you trying to suggest that non gun owners wouldn't tell their children the same advice?

I assume not, but of course you are deliberately missing the point.

The full quote was;

You know why you have told her this? Because you know how dangerous they can be.

So even though gun owners know the possible dangers in having guns, they feel that it is acceptable to bring that danger into their home, amongst their family, on the pretence of keeping an unknown and unqualified threat out.

And not only that, even though we all know that there are many irresponsible people in the world, they feel it right that they should place no burdens in the way of these people having access to guns, again which places their child in danger.

Is it really being responsible as a parent to allow a situation where almost anyone can buy guns of all types? If your child is injured in one of these school shootings, their friends killed, will you be the one that sits down and tells them that you voted for this, that this is a price worth paying. That when a chance came to change things, that you, as a responsible parent, put the unsourced paranoia of the few ahead of the safety of others?

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you say (Barring the last phrase, as I didn't bring up the Chicago analogy in the first place). But if Chicago has social issues, and as I say, I agree with you that it does, let Chicago sort out their social issues. Hasn't got much to do with neighboring Iowa.

It has plenty to do with Iowa and the other 46 US states you can drive to Chicago from.

Gun control laws at a state by state level are pointless. Actually worse than pointless, they provide a lazy argument for gun rights activists to go to.

You think gun ownership is a necessity in the US? Is that correct? If not then how important is it?

the_syco

Leroy42 wrote: »

So even though gun owners know the possible dangers in having guns, they feel that it is acceptable to bring that danger into their home, amongst their family, on the pretence of keeping an unknown and unqualified threat out.

The danger only exists in the home if the danger is ignored.

Putting the gun into a gun safe that only you have access to, and instructing the dangers of guns to your children ensures that the danger is not ignored. Way to many deaths were caused by children not knowing about the dangers of guns, and the accessibility of said gun.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is it really being responsible as a parent to allow a situation where almost anyone can buy guns of all types?

Have no issue with handguns. Don't see the point of semi-automatic rifles, though, such as the Gilboa Snake Double Barrel AR-15 for civilian use, though, and agree with them being restricted.

Brian?

the_syco wrote: »

The danger only exists in the home if the danger is ignored.

Putting the gun into a gun safe that only you have access to, and instructing the dangers of guns to your children ensures that the danger is not ignored. Way to many deaths were caused by children not knowing about the dangers of guns, and the accessibility of said gun.


Have no issue with handguns. Don't see the point of semi-automatic rifles, though, such as the Gilboa Snake Double Barrel AR-15 for civilian use, though, and agree with them being restricted.

If an AR-15 is practical for civilian use, surely 2 ARs put together is twice as practical.

recedite

the_syco wrote: »

Don't see the point of semi-automatic rifles, though, such as the Gilboa Snake Double Barrel AR-15 for civilian use, though, and agree with them being restricted.

I'm guessing it's so named as it would deliver a series of paired snake-bite shots, as opposed to tight groupings of shots from a fully automatic military grade rifle in capable hands. So one up from the single shot of a semi-automatic then.
More accurate than a pistol, but harder to conceal. I don't see why you would object to this, but "have no issue with hand guns".

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right so based on nothing more than paranoia, you think it is useful to allow every citizen to arm themselves on the unknown risk of somebody attacking them in their home. With the not unexpected outcome that many people will die from accidents etc.

Is it paranoia when it actually does happen? It's unlikely, sure. In eighteen years I've not yet been burgled or mugged in the US. Which is better than I can say for my parents' experiences in Europe, they've had both. Burlgary, repeatedly. However, it would be rather unfounded of me to deny that there is a home invasion rate, a mugging rate, and armed robbery rate, carjacking rate, or pick any other physical crime against the person rate in the US and just because it hasn't happened to me yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't. Especially as I continue to age and become a more vulnerable member of society.

But by protecting them from an unquantifiable threat you are bring a statistically large threat into your home. I can be pretty certain that the vast amount of these accidents happen to people who felt they had everything in place, had talked to their kids etc etc. Nobody sets out for this to happen.

It's not unquantifiable. There are plenty of figures covering the various types of event which would find a defensive firearms to be useful. And, yes, I agree with you that a lot of instances were folks who thought they were being safe but weren't. The difference is that the latter is usually within my control, and the former is not. I am likely to blame if a tragedy happens as a result of my firearm in the home. I am likely not to blame if a tragedy happens as a result of someone else, unless, by my own inaction, I allowed it to happen. So, I have taken what measures I believe to be appropriate to mitigate the risks. Until my nearly-9-year-old figures out how to crack open a safe or lockbox, I believe the balance of probabilities is in my favour.

Removing the sale of guns would be better. But if by education you mean a campaign to explain that people don't need guns then I agree with you. If you mean that studies should be undertaken at a national level, with comparison to other countries to try to understand why guns are so destructive in the US then I am all in. If by education you mean that the statistics are shown for what they are. The number of deaths. The number of injuries. The number of people terrorised by shooting incidents, then yes I agree.

There is no reason not to add those in if you want. But I was more thinking of education as to the practicalities of firearms in the home. How to best achieve the desired endstate whilst minimizing any risks which may appear. We do a lot of education campaigns on anything from booze to sex to cars to cooking pork. We don't say "don't do it", we say "this is how you do it safely with best practices". What would be wrong, for example, with encouraging folks to take the NRA's Home Firearm Safety Training Course?

The Supreme court is always open to review. Hence why the abortion debate has never been settled. I always love this from gun advocates that one the supreme court rules in their favour then all bets are off. I do not know the details of the case, but it all depends on exactly what was sought. Surely there is a way, in an era where I can use my fingerprint to activate my phone, for fingerprints to be utilised on a gun that doesn't negate the "core lawful purpose of self-defense"?

It is, and when the Supreme Court reverses itself, and we have a new law of the land, I will address potential courses of actions accordingly, at least, insofar as federal law applies, as there is no mistaking many of the State constitutions. Any course of action which relies on a reversal of a Supreme Court judgement is going to be about as effective as the anti-abortion campaign in the US is currently getting on, and is thus pretty pointless. They've been hoping for a reversal of Roe v Wade for a duration equivalent to about a fifth of the entire existence of the country, and there's no sign of any change happening any time soon.

So that if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun they cannot use it themselves. You place a lock on your phone don't you. You have an immobiliser on your car. You can cancel your bank cards. Why not use the same thinking with guns? It would also have a big effect on criminals getting their hands on guns, so its a win win.

As I said, mandating a lock when the home is unoccupied does seem to pass legal muster. The issue is when the home is not unoccupied, and mandating locks in such circumstances is explicitly prohibited. The reason I have a large rifle safe isn't for my child's protection, it's for thefts.

As a rough estimate, what do you think the costs of all the school shootings in the last twenty odd years have cost the US? The medical costs, trauma treatment, psychology, extra security on campus, training the teachers etc etc. Costs doesn't seem to be an issue.

I actually agree with you. As I said, the costs is fairly affordable. That said, I would wager that the outcry would come from the Democrats if we attempted to try it. "You're giving the firearms industry billions." "You're encouraging firearms ownership by giving out gun safes"....

I am not blaming them for the misuse, am am blaming the owners of them for their proper use. We regulate that objects are used for the purpose they were created. But we place limits on them. We have speed limits, and age restrictions on alcohol. Kids are not allowed alcohol, but no such restriction exists for guns. When drivers fail to observe the laws they are fined or lose their licence, you don't even need a licence to own a gun. And the gun lobby are against any and all restrictions.

We do have restrictions on firearms, they are just not as tight as you would like them. Even in a Constitutional Carry state like Maine, there are restrictions on how old you can be to carry a gun or where you can carry it. If you unlawfully misuse your gun, it's often going to be a felony by its very nature (usually defined by anything which can land you up to a year in jail) , and you lose your right to own a firearm for life: A little stricter than penalty points on the license. It is certainly not correct to say that there are no restrictions.

You don't need to. Look at the Australian example. They haven't had a mass shooting since. Did they remove every gun from the country? No. But you make a start. You stop selling more guns, you stop making the problem worse. I am always surprised that a country that landed on the moon, that split the atom, that is planning on trips to Mars, thinks this is a problem outside of its ability to solve. Even more so since other countries, such as Australia and the UK, have already shown it is possible.

I'm not sure that solved it. There has not been shown to be a causal effect between the Australian gun buyback and the lack of mass shootings. It could well be that the weapon permitting laws they (or their culturally similar neighbours in NZ, which did not ban such firearms) have in place have a lot more to do with it, together with general antipodean culture. It's certainly not a lack of guns, the Aussies have more now than they did twenty years ago, and as several mass shooters in the US have demonstrated, you don't need semi-auto rifles to have a mass shooting

Well it is no surprise she is scared of guns, you have told her just how dangerous they are.

Heck, she was scared of steak knives until last year when I finally convinced her to pick one up to cut her own meat. Maybe it's poor parenting, but I would be much happier to see her overly cautious with something which can hurt her if poorly handled, than not. The trick seems to be in coaching her to overcome those concerns when I feel confident that she's up to it.

Have you told her tun away from swimming pools, cars, electric drills. No of course not, yet only a few paragraphs back you were trying to lump them all together.

Yes, yes, and no. She knew not to get too close to the water, until we had her swimming at age 5. She would not cross the street or parking lot, anywhere where cars travel, unless she was holding an adult's hand, that held up until at least age 7, and is still more often than not today. I have never had my electric drill out when she's around, so the third is more of an N/A. She has child safety scissors to cut paper, a helmet for her bike and skateboard, a nice bright jacket for night wear...Precautions. Kids will be kids, they'll climb trees, fall as they run (she's had her arm broken already), fall off the jungle gym, you can't keep an eye on them all the time even if you want to. But what you can do is to try to mitigate the hazards they will encounter and instill some basic safety rules that they can remember when they are out of your sight.

As already mentioned, of course guns are not the only issue, any more than drugs are the sole issue for cime. But why add to the mix? Why would the rest of the US not be inclined to try to help Chicago? Its called the United States not the "not my problem mate" states.

At the very least the neighbouring states should be bringing in state only sales, mandatory identification, police sign off etc.

First and foremost, the States' primary obligation is to its own citizenry. There's a reason why the Czech Republic has filed suit against the EU over gun laws it deems too strict. (I don't think they'll win, because of the nature of the EU, but they are definitely showing domestic-first). If the people in a neighbouring state have a Constitution that says "right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property", then whatever action is taken to help Illinois cannot interfere with the domestic situation.

However, selling to someone from another State is already illegal. I agree with mandatory background checks, which will enforce checking for State of origin as a side-effect. That said, it's a matter of scale. A survey of convicts showed that only 2% of them purchased through private party transaction from someone who was not family or friend, and that's not differentiating the State of acquisition. So while, yes, I support the idea of checking, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference to Illinois and the solution is still going to be for Illinois and Chicago to solve its societal problems. Which are severe. The military is now sending its medics on tours of duty in Chicago, for hands-on training before going to a war zone.

[ETA: I could get behind this. https://thepathforwardonguns.com/]

BabyCheeses

You would think if people were so sure that the ease of access to guns wasn't the problem they would attempt to put together some solutions to prove it. Instead they come up with the bright idea of shooting the shooter before he can shoot anyone else. If I felt I needed a gun to be safe in an area I would be out of there as fast as I could.

DickSwiveller

BabyCheeses wrote: »

You would think if people were so sure that the ease of access to guns wasn't the problem they would attempt to put together some solutions to prove it. Instead they come up with the bright idea of shooting the shooter before he can shoot anyone else. If I felt I needed a gun to be safe in an area I would be out of there as fast as I could.

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

So are you suggesting that there is no solution to the problem?

Hitman3000

DickSwiveller wrote:

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

You're right nothing should be attempted, carry on it'll be grand.

DickSwiveller

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You're right nothing should be attempted, carry on it'll be grand.

The idea that guns are the cause of these mass shootings is ludicrous. The gun didn't walk in by itself. In Ireland, guns and drugs are illegal yet criminals have no problem getting them.

Edgarfrndly

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

Start by banning AR-15's and anything else with high-capacity magazines. They are not needed for self defense.

DickSwiveller

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Start by banning AR-15's and anything else with high-capacity magazines. They are not needed for self defense.

And let the criminals have them instead?

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The idea that guns are the cause of these mass shootings is ludicrous. The gun didn't walk in by itself. In Ireland, guns and drugs are illegal yet criminals have no problem getting them.

Nobody is claiming that the gun walked in by itself. What people are saying is that the guy who wants to do harm, how do you reduce their ability to cause mass deaths.

In airlines, for example, they stopped people taking knifes etc on board to reduce the risk that the plane could be hijacked.

But although they know that guns are used in a large number of mass killing events in the US, they do nothing at all to limit the availability.

With you logic, we would never do anything about anything

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming that the gun walked in by itself. What people are saying is that the guy who wants to do harm, how do you reduce their ability to cause mass deaths.

In airlines, for example, they stopped people taking knifes etc on board to reduce the risk that the plane could be hijacked.

But although they know that guns are used in a large number of mass killing events in the US, they do nothing at all to limit the availability.

With you logic, we would never do anything about anything

But what if limiting the availability does nothing?

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

And let the criminals have them instead?

So you having one stops them getting them?

The US crimes stats do not back up your position that arming the civilians will reduce the crimes. In fact it is the opposite effect

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But what if limiting the availability does nothing?

What if it does something?

Follow my plan and we are no worse off. Follow your's and the mass shootings will continue.

The difference is that my plan has actual real life examples of working. Australia and the UK off the top of my head. Can you point to any country that has used increased civilian gun ownership to reduce gun deaths?

DickSwiveller

Boards baffles me sometimes. Whenever there is a thread about legalising drugs the consensus among 99 per cent of posters' is that drugs should be legalised because keeping them illegal doesn't work and creates more users. Yet the groupthink conclusion in this thread seems to be that restricting access to guns will definitely work. I'm confused.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you having one stops them getting them?

The US crimes stats do not back up your position that arming the civilians will reduce the crimes. In fact it is the opposite effect

If you ban AR15 guns in a country with 300 million guns, then the only people who will be happy are the criminals, who won't follow the law. The ordinary law abiding people will suffer.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you ban AR15 guns in a country with 300 million guns, then the only people who will be happy are the criminals, who won't follow the law. The ordinary law abiding people will suffer.

Again, the stats seem to suggest that having all these guns is not having the positive benefit you are suggesting.

With 300 millions guns, surely every criminal would be too scared of getting shot to carry out any crime. Is that the case?

Criminals will always look for ways to carry out crimes. Guns are available in Las Vegas, yet that is the place of the single largest mass shooting in US history.

Recently there was a shooting in a church in Texas, surely the shooter knew that people there had guns, yet it didn't seem to deter him?

Hitman3000

DickSwiveller wrote:

The idea that guns are the cause of these mass shootings is ludicrous. The gun didn't walk in by itself. In Ireland, guns and drugs are illegal yet criminals have no problem getting them.

Totally agree, just for the sake of clarity though there has never been a school shooting in Ireland that I can remember in the last 40 years. 15 in America since 1st Janaury. Guns may not be the cause of mass shootings but they do seem to be the cause of mass deaths.

Hitman3000

DickSwiveller wrote:

Boards baffles me sometimes. Whenever there is a thread about legalising drugs the consensus among 99 per cent of posters' is that drugs should be legalised because keeping them illegal doesn't work and creates more users. Yet the groupthink conclusion in this thread seems to be that restricting access to guns will definitely work. I'm confused.

It also baffles me when someone's position has been shown to be ridiculous they engage in whataboutery about some other unrelated topic.

Leroy42

Right Dick, what data are you basing the position that arming civilians leads to lower crime rates?

Fail to answer that and you position in baseless.

And even if you somehow manage to get something, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that arming civilians, with the inherent accidents that naturally occurs, is worth it.

On a final point, why do you believe that he US has such a vastly higher level of mass shootings that any other country (non war) in the world.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Boards baffles me sometimes. Whenever there is a thread about legalising drugs the consensus among 99 per cent of posters' is that drugs should be legalised because keeping them illegal doesn't work and creates more users. Yet the groupthink conclusion in this thread seems to be that restricting access to guns will definitely work. I'm confused.

False equivalency.

Drug users only harm themselves. Drug dealers harm each other fighting over the control of supply. Legalise drugs and you lower violent crime.

The free availability of guns gives everyone access to something that can, and does, harm others.

I'll give you an example. Seat belt laws versus drink driving laws. One makes logical sense to protect the population. One can be considered nanny statism.

FYI. I don't believe any gun bans will address the root cause of the gun violence issue in the US. It's a societal issue, not a legal issue.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

False equivalency.

Drug users only harm themselves. Drug dealers harm each other fighting over the control of supply. Legalise drugs and you lower violent crime.

The free availability of guns gives everyone access to something that can, and does, harm others.

I'll give you an example. Seat belt laws versus drink driving laws. One makes logical sense to protect the population. One can be considered nanny statism.

FYI. I don't believe any gun bans will address the root cause of the gun violence issue in the US. It's a societal issue, not a legal issue.

Drug users only harm themselves

Not true. They harm those closest to them (See Henry Cockburn's book about his son's use of cannabis and the mental problems he suffered with). They rob to feed their habit, thus affecting others.

I have no problem with citizens being able to buy guns. I don't think the State should have the power to deny access. In Ireland, the only people whoa re freely able to own a gun are criminals. They have no problem getting them. While lonely, unarmed farmers worry about these thugs attacking them.

I completely agree with your last sentence.

DickSwiveller

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right Dick, what data are you basing the position that arming civilians leads to lower crime rates?

Fail to answer that and you position in baseless.

And even if you somehow manage to get something, it still doesn't lead to the conclusion that arming civilians, with the inherent accidents that naturally occurs, is worth it.

On a final point, why do you believe that he US has such a vastly higher level of mass shootings that any other country (non war) in the world.

I didn't say that arming civilians reduces crime rates. I'm talking specifically about the USA, a country that has 300 million guns in circulation. If people think that guns cause these mass shootings, why is it a relatively recent phenomenon? Prior to the 1980's these kinds of massacres were virtually unknown. Might it not have something to do with the horrible society that exists in that country, where money, success and rank materialism are valued above everything else, leaving a whole class of disenfranchised, alienated people.

Btw, Britain in the 19th century had similar levels of gun ownership to Texas now and I can't find any examples of mass killings.

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you ban AR15 guns in a country with 300 million guns, then the only people who will be happy are the criminals, who won't follow the law. The ordinary law abiding people will suffer.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I didn't say that arming civilians reduces crime rates.

Well you have me confused then. On the first post you seem to making the suggestion that arming civilians is the only way to protect them from criminals, but then go on to claim that it doesn't reduce crime. So what is your basis for allowing civilians to continue to hold guns?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm talking specifically about the USA, a country that has 300 million guns in circulation. If people think that guns cause these mass shootings, why is it a relatively recent phenomenon? Prior to the 1980's these kinds of massacres were virtually unknown. Might it not have something to do with the horrible society that exists in that country, where money, success and rank materialism are valued above everything else, leaving a whole class of disenfranchised, alienated people.

Btw, Britain in the 19th century had similar levels of gun ownership to Texas now and I can't find any examples of mass killings.

Did 19th century Britain have guns like the AR-15? Did they have bump stocks? What type of loading mechanisms did they have? 19th century had nothing like the rapid fire weapons of today. You might get one shot off before everyone scarpered.

And I agree that the gun violence is an outcome of other problems. But then taking that logic why the war on drugs? Drugs are only a way for people, who are looking for some release from life, a gee up, a rush. Drugs are not the problem, people are. I have never seen a drug inject itself! You see how illogical your position is?

But we know that underlying issues exist (although thanks to the NRA lobbying we have yet to be able to research what these actually are) but why, when you know these problems exist, would anybody think it is a good idea to add fuel to the fire, to add anything that could potentially add to any outbreak that happens.

BabyCheeses

DickSwiveller wrote: »

There are currently 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S. How are some restrictions going to control this number of guns? The only people who will be affected if the government brings in restrictions are the law abiding people who don't randomly kill people.

This is a perfect example of what I said. You just put down any idea that the ease of access to weapons could have an affect on mass killings but don't explain what is the problem.

Why ban anything? Why can't I own a nuclear weapon? Why aren't there more terrorist attacks with them? According to you a ban won't stop terrorists getting them.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Drug users only harm themselves

Not true. They harm those closest to them (See Henry Cockburn's book about his son's use of cannabis and the mental problems he suffered with). They rob to feed their habit, thus affecting others.

I would argue that the harm drugs caused would be lessened by decriminalising them. The data shows this to be true. Look at Portugal.

I have no problem with citizens being able to buy guns. I don't think the State should have the power to deny access. In Ireland, the only people whoa re freely able to own a gun are criminals. They have no problem getting them. While lonely, unarmed farmers worry about these thugs attacking them.

I completely agree with your last sentence.

The bolded part is patently untrue. Criminals are not freely able to own guns, if caught they go to prison.

BabyCheeses

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

Eric Cartman

BabyCheeses wrote: »

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

when was the last time somebody was shot at an NRA meeting, gun convention, weapons expo etc...

Manic Moran

BabyCheeses wrote: »

NRA convention is to be a gun free zone due to secret service requirements. According to the NRA if everyone there is armed it should be the safest place on earth.

The Secret Service has a great ability to piss everyone off. Fortunately Trump doesn't come to San Francisco anywhere near the regularity of Obama. The TFR which always results is annoying as hell, and God help our traffic patterns if he decided he wanted to go from San Francisco to Silicon Valley.

As for irony, have you noticed how many of the leading anti-gun voices have armed security?