Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135540#Comment_119135540

Also - Any EO from Biden around gun control would be rejected by the States and they'd go straight to the Supreme Court who would cite the 2nd Amendment and that would be that.

Any change to actual law requires 60 votes in the Senate meaning 10+ Republicans supporting it , which will never happen.

Over 2 years ago , the House passed a piece of Gun control legislation dealing with universal background checks and that has been blocked by Senate Republicans from even getting to a vote ever since.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135468#Comment_119135468

I mean in the armed resistance scenario (agreed unlikely) 40 people with guns at least have gone through whatever checks are relevant for their states. I still wouldn't want to be near them admittedly. 1 person with 40 guns looking to start a resistance will hand out the guns to the nearest 39 people who agree with them.

In general I would consider 40 guns an obsession to the point it defines who they are. At that point someone isn't doing it for practical reasons, you are doing it out of obsession. I just don't trust someone at that point mentally to take the relevant due care that dangerous weapons need, people underestimate low odds scenarios (i.e. toddler picking up a gun left alone and shooting it etc. etc. etc.) especially with things they love (my dog won't bite). If someone has less of an emotional attachment to it then I can see it being approached logically and safely without emotions and the personality getting in the way. Obviously plenty of people just get one gun who shouldn't be near one as well.

As for the cars, yeah I would assume someone obsessed with cars is likely a more technically proficient but ultimately more dangerous driver (they don't put turn signals on the expensive ones). Although at the 40 car stage it is also pretty likely it is some status symbol and they know next to nothing about cars.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135604#Comment_119135604

I'd be of the opinion that 40 guns are more dangerous than one gun if they're not stored safely. In Ireland, you're expected to have them in a safe so some burglar doesn't have the opportunity to grab the guns and distribute them for nefarious purposes. That said, in Ireland, you don't need a safe if you have a single shotgun, which I think is unacceptable. I think a safe should be required for everyone, not just owners of multiple guns.

Afaik, none of this is a requirement in the US. Criminals aside, there have been plenty of cases of children shooting themselves or others because of irresponsible storage.

CowboyTed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119130658#Comment_119130658

Full Automatic is a waste of time... Military doesn't used full automatic... Semi Automatic rifle is the gun of choice for Mass Shooters while the Handgun is the most dangerous in America (and also one least likely to get in Europe)...

Anyway, Solution, The Texas mass shooting last week would cost about $100m in civil damages in a court in the US... $3m a life and various other costs for injuries... It should be reasonable with a mass shooting averaging one a day that mandatory public liability insurance should be a part of owning a gun... People pay for guns and shouldn't insurance to cover the possible damage of that gun be a part of individual responsibility, it is not like they got the gun for free..

The cover for a gun should then reflect the damage that gun could possibly do... So an AR-15 would need to have cover of about $50m (if you look at Sandy Hook and Texas, Buffalo would have been just short of $50m). Sandy Hook the guns were robbed and used in the shooting.

So insurance companies would probably offer discounts for backgrounds checks, mental health assessments, gun safes,...

Police can ask if a person has there gun insured and take possession until they showed proof... From a US constitution it stands up, as I said it is part of owning a gun, NRA might actually support it as they are the leading sellers of Gun Insurance in US... Insurance Lobby is just as big and powerful as the Gun lobby and maybe more so.. This might be the closest thing to actually passing, probably has still a bit of work to go but at least brings in very powerful elements on the other side too..

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135925#Comment_119135925

Sandy Hook guns were owned by the mother of the shooter. He took them from a safe at home. "Robbed" is a bit of a stretch.

"Pro life would be 20 Sandy Hook students starting high school." We'll be able to say the same about Uvalde in about 10 years. But, the citizens of Uvalde are o.k. with this. They're mad at their inept police force, but as long as they get their emotional goodies filled by the GOP, the gun regs won't change at all. Beto O'Rourke calls out Abbott and the Mayor of Uvalde called Beto an s.o.b.. The citizens of Uvalde elected that mayor and prior to last week, I imagine he was a shoo-in for reelection.

End the filibuster already and suffer the consequences.

Quin_Dub

Here's the bit I don't get from a legal perspective in terms of the 2nd amendment.

It says "...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It seems to me that they are focusing on the last bit - The "shall not be infringed" part while ignoring the 1st bit about "well regulated"

Surely the "well regulated Militia" bit provides the constitutional support for legislation around registration and training?

Regulated means (According to Webster)-

1a: to govern or direct according to rule

1b(1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

1b(2): to make regulations for or concerning

regulate the industries of a country

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits

Surely that allows for laws and rules and standards (which would mean training) ?

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136038#Comment_119136038

It only allows for what will be given by the law makers and they are far more interested in their jobs and lobbyists cash than some dead kids.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136038#Comment_119136038

The "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment is the part that I've argued about for years. It's always the part that 2nd Amendmenters tend to conveniently leave out of the equation, even though it's arguably the most important part of the amendment itself. Jimmy with 50 guns in his gaff isn't part of a "well regulated militia" in any sense. Worse still is the idea that an 18 year old with extreme mental problems getting his hands on firearms with an absurd ease which should be shocking to anyone with a capacity to think.

In any case, the sentencing of the 2nd Amendment has always struck me as being incredibly clumsy, albeit consistent with the times it was written in.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136337#Comment_119136337

DC vs. Heller settled this for now. One of Scalia's worst works. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/second-amendment-heller-scalia-indianapolis/index.html

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136367#Comment_119136367

Indeed and Scalia simply ignored the 1st half and the opinion was based solely on "shall not be infringed"

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136382#Comment_119136382

Apparently Scalia and Thomas thought the decision didn't go far enough. Imagine the mischief they'll be getting up to in the future.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136382#Comment_119136382

it is surely poorly worded and that is part of the problem no?

Munsterlad102

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135925#Comment_119135925

With all due respect, you have know f*cking clue what you're talking about. Semi auto rifles have been obsolete for half a century, no army is sending their men to die with a civilian rifle rather than a full auto or burst fire.

The majority of mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns, so get your facts straight before you make such baseless statements. Also handguns or semi auto rifles aren't banned or very hard to get in Europe and are readily available for target shooting and hunting.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119134168#Comment_119134168

It's hard for many Irish people to understand the culture over there. For about 40% of the US, guns are part of their culture and most of them aren't for changing. I know a few US citizens who don't own guns but they are still in favour of the right to bear arms. If push came to shove and there was the threat of a gun ban, you'd be surprised how many of them would rush out and buy a gun/guns. I don't think there's the appetite there among the general population to change the 2nd Amendment.

There's also not many politicians willing to risk the ire of their voters. Politicians who risk the ire of their voters tend to suffer in the polls and this usually means that they could be out of a job. Because the right to bear arms is so entrenched in so much of the US population, a politician who tries to remove guns/introduce strict controls could very well end up being voted out of office.

The narrative is slowly changing for sure because there are more and more people calling for some sort of gun control. Gun control is needed for sure but the process will be slow, very slow because most gun owners don't really want to give an inch because as can be seen in other countries such as Ireland, when gun owners give an inch, the government come back for another inch and so on and so on.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135925#Comment_119135925

Handguns are the firearm of choice for mass shootings. They are used in 77% of mass shootings. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

There's also fcukall armies arming their soldiers with AR15s. They are a civilian firearm. There's far more suitable firearms out there for soldiers to use in war.

I'm actually in favour of gun owners being insured but we don't even have that requirement here in Ireland. I'm actually insured myself but it isn't a legal requirment here and I certainly can't see the US going down that road. Making it unrealistically expensive to have a gun in the US is also possibly skirting with the 'shall not be infringed' part of the 2nd Amendment.

How does the police taking your gun until you provide proof of insurance stand up to Constitutional scrutiny? I'd argue that there's absolutely no way that would stand up from a Constitutional point of view. No hope of the NRA supporting something like this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136337#Comment_119136337

I don't think there is the appetite for a vote on removing the 2nd Amendment and even less chance of that passing. And even if it was removed, nearly every State has its own Constution that has some form of the right to bear arms in it. So getting rid of it from the US Constitution might have little effect if individual States don't get rid of it from their own State Constitutions.

It's also a very difficult process to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last one back in 1992.

salmocab

I’ve seen social media posts about how Biden has signed over America to the WHO and they can use the military to force things on people. So long as people stupid enough to post nonsense like that can obtain guns then kids will continue to be murdered. Nothing is going to change because not enough people actually want it to change. 2a has purposely been misinterpreted by people with an agenda and people will continue to die. They are okay with that because they get to play with guns.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136038#Comment_119136038

The first question answered here: https://electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May28.html

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136473#Comment_119136473

Indeed and this is where the Right wing "Constitutional originalists" really screw everything for everybody.

They are attempting to force everyone to accept a form of words written 150+ years ago when both language and its meaning was quite different.

Scalia and his current acolytes would say "The Constitution is not a living document , it must not be interpreted but applied only exactly as written" but if anyone came along and suggested that the language needs to be modernised to remove ambiguity and to provide clarity , they'd all lose their minds.

Either it's a living document and it's meaning can be interpreted with a revised modern lens as required or it's a fixed document and can be updated and amended as required to reflect the needs of a modern society.

They can't have it both ways , well it seems they can sadly currently as they won't allow interpretation nor will they countenance making changes so the US is stuck in this endless loop of "SCOTUS Precedent" to facilitate the opinions/beliefs of the day.

Strazdas

The mind boggles as to what would happen if a present day civil war broke out in the US. It would probably be the only civil war in history where nearly every citizen in the country potentially had access to a weapon - it would make the Spanish Civil War look like a vicar's tea party.

Pussyhands

There will be another civil war in America. Just because we're in 2022 and we're supposed to be all civilised won't matter a jot.

It would be naive to think this period of the last 100 years or so is where wars and unrest ended for eternity.

People would have thought a full scale invasion of another european country was never going to happen again.

Tony EH

@BattleCorp I don't think there is the appetite for a vote on removing the 2nd Amendment and even less chance of that passing. And even if it was removed, nearly every State has its own Constution that has some form of the right to bear arms in it. So getting rid of it from the US Constitution might have little effect if individual States don't get rid of it from their own State Constitutions.

I didn't mention anything about "removing" the 2nd Amendment. I'm talking about acting upon it as it is written and that means the "right to bear arms" within the context of a "well regulated militia". Which is a situation that doesn't exist today.

Big business and special interest (tax exempt) groups need to be taken out of the game and a proper system of regulation put in place that pursues efforts to make it difficult, if not impossible, for firearms to fall into the wrong hands. It won't completely eliminate all of these types of massacres or other types of shootings, but it would serve to reduce their number and frequency...which would be something, at least...as opposed to doing nothing.

@BattleCorp It's also a very difficult process to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last one back in 1992.

Yes, 1992 was the last time the constitution was amended. The 27th Amendment. It may be a difficult process, but it's far from impossible if the political will is there. The constitution can be changed. The 2nd Amendment, itself, is proof of that already.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119135604#Comment_119135604

But you can't shoot more than one weapon at a time.

Yes, Paddock had 24 firearms in his room. He fired fifteen of them, a number of those were duplicates. Why does this make him any more dangerous than firing the same rifle fifteen times? Rifles can be reloaded, and it's either a dozen magazines or another rifle for the same weight. If you want to cause chaos, there is a point of diminishing returns at which you want to bring ammo, and not firearms. Note how Brevik killed more people than Paddock, but didn't bring a slew of firearms along with him, you have to admit it would have slowed him down a bit.

As for securing them all, I don't know about most other folks, but my safe is still the same if I use it to store one gun or ten. My experience tends to be that collectors tend to keep their firearms fairly secure, the 'stolen' guns are usually that one-off kept by a non-enthusiast in their dressing table and the like, picked up by opportunity during a burglary. It's not just a 'safety' thing, the only thing more financially valuable in my house is the wife's wedding jewelry.

riclad

Every country has young people with mental health problems, but no other country allows 18 year olds to buy automatic rifles so easily without background checks. The obvious thing to do is raise the age to buy rifles to 21 in all states . Today Canada announced it will buy back automatic weapons from citizens and put a freeze on buying handguns it is also putting in red flag laws to take away weapons from people who may pose a danger to other citizens . What happened this week is unusual in that the police waited outside the school for 40 minutes they were simply afraid to go in and they prevented local parents from going into the school. Schools need more security , high security doors , with automatic locks shooters should not be able to walk into a school thru an open door.

Canada also banned weapons with high capacity magazines they are obviously reacting to the mass shootings in America

The problem is its very hard to pass any gun control laws in Congress in. America when most republicans support the NRA.

I think Australia bought back over 200 k weapons from citizens after there was a mass shooting there a few years ago

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119136038#Comment_119136038

The second amendment is, like the entire constitution is very brief in language. Which creates all the debate.

However in that sentence “regulated” applies to militia, not the citizens rights. Which means the rights should not be infringed so that the states can maintain a regulated militia. Regulated in that sense means trained organised.

It’s not conclusive, the big question is usually whether it means;

a) Rights should not be infringed so that they have the ability to form a militia, or

b) The right to bear arms only applies when functioning as a militia.

changing the above would require baby steps not slashing the whole amendment

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138132#Comment_119138132

I absolutely accept that the ambiguity of the language is what is driving the issues.

It's also the near impossibility of implementing change - The legislative thresholds to a constitutional change make them effectively impossible to do , especially in todays hyper-partisan landscape.

So it's left to SCOTUS to decide precedent and despite being an "originalist" Scalia, in Dean vs. Heller essentially ignored the ambiguity and decided that the only bit of the sentence that mattered was "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that any consideration for "well regulated militia" was irrelevant.

It should also be pointed out , that Dean vs. Heller only happened in 2008 , despite the NRA et al talking about their rights being there since the foundation of the country , prior to 2008 the law allowed for far stricter legislation to apply. But since then it's a virtual free-for-all with unlimited open carry , concealed carry , no licence required etc. etc.

With the current make-up of the court , that's not going to change any time soon either.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119132101#Comment_119132101

Sad but true.

extra gravy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119137816#Comment_119137816

So where do you draw the line with collectors? 100 guns? 1000? Enough for an army? It's just ridiculous in a supposedly civilised society.

extra gravy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138199#Comment_119138199

As is this.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138529#Comment_119138529

If someone is a law abiding citizen what difference does it matter how many guns he/she has? If they are not a danger to the public, what can be achieved by limiting how many guns they can have? I personally have 8 guns. All are used regularly and for lawful purposes (target shooting and occasionally vermin control) and are securely stored in a safe when not in use.

I've been in one person's house in the US where he had over 200 guns. He collected guns and motorbikes. That was his thing. Guess how many of them were used for illegal purposes? Absolutely zero is the answer to that question. So he was safer with 200 guns than yer man last week with two guns. He also kept them in a safe........well actually a large room converted into a vault...... essentially a room size safe.

I've no problem with the number of guns someone has if they are a level headed, law abiding citizen and store them properly. I do have a problem with mad lads getting guns. The focus should be on making sure that the mad lads don't get their hands on guns, and not on telling law abiding, sensible citizens that they can't have 10, 20, 30 guns etc.

I agree with most here that the gun laws are too loose in the US. They do need some tightening up to try keep guns out of the hands of crazy fcukers.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119138529#Comment_119138529

Again, why?

Not only do I know people with over 100 guns, I personally know three (and can identify a fourth) who have at least five each fully armed and operational tanks (granted, not newer than Leopard 1 or M60, and the M60 is missing the M85 machinegun which is impossible to find on the civilian market) in their collections. One, in Vegas, had his APCs borrowed by the police to respond to the Paddock shooting. One is a rabbi.

These are people who have done far better than me in life. They have no grievances against society. Buying one tank isn't cheap, let alone a platoon's worth. If you have the money to buy a couple hundred firearms, it is unlikely you have a score to settle against any class of people. Plus the three I do know are all pretty friendly and intelligent folk.

The fundamental point is that having more guns, or even a tank, doesn't make you dangerous (And to the earlier comment that someone with 40 guns would just give his guns to 39 angry friends, I would suspect that such 39 angry friends would be the type to already own their own guns and not need them). People seem to be objecting to collection sizes on emotional grounds, which in fairness isn't a new concept in the gun control discussion. Saying "it's not civilised" is hardly a fact based comment sufficient to curtail someone's activities.

To be clear, by the way, there is no right to a tank in the US, the paperwork is a bit trickier, and the paperwork for high explosive rounds is so bad that nobody bothers with them. However, effectively operating one tank on your own is impossible, there's no reason why having multiple is a problem, regardless of anyone's personal opinions of weapons collecting.