Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Buddahaid]

I for one don't think the anti gun crowd will settle for anything less than an outright ban. Giving an inch will just be another feather in their caps to rally around.

[Oberon]

Valid point, let's face it, there are extremists on both sides, the trouble is finding a solution that makes either side feel like they've achieved something.

Ok, I speak enough of comprise so I should practice some of it. Let's take the whole gun-safe check off the table for a moment. How would the pro-gun members stop or attempt to stop incidents when someone who is not supposed to have access to a firearm be it either because they are too young or have not passed the checks, from gaining access to a firearm through the insecure storage of a firearm by another, be it their parents or a friend?
An example of this being the incident discussed in this thread a few pages ago where an underage boy used his fathers shotgun to shoot a little girl.
Inaction really isn't a morally acceptable option, so how should it be addressed or at the very least attempted to be addressed.

[Buddahaid]

Most similar incidents I've read about the gun owners are charged which is why I thought this fellow would also be charged. Since he's not being charged it must be local law difference or there is more to the circumstances than has been reported.

[Buddahaid]

A quick search and it's 14 states that hold parents liable and one state that requires guns to be locked up.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Valid point, let's face it, there are extremists on both sides, the trouble is finding a solution that makes either side feel like they've achieved something.

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Ok, I speak enough of comprise so I should practice some of it. Let's take the whole gun-safe check off the table for a moment.

That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

How would the pro-gun members stop or attempt to stop incidents when someone who is not supposed to have access to a firearm be it either because they are too young or have not passed the checks, from gaining access to a firearm through the insecure storage of a firearm by another, be it their parents or a friend?

There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

An example of this being the incident discussed in this thread a few pages ago where an underage boy used his fathers shotgun to shoot a little girl.
Inaction really isn't a morally acceptable option, so how should it be addressed or at the very least attempted to be addressed.

Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense. How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here. If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried. Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Not one step back! The line must be drawn here, here and no further! Seriously though, I'm not entirely certain that the moral ground favours such rigid defence, but I guess that is how things are in America and is probably why nothing has gotten done in the States for the past five to six years and why the government seems to be one argument away from another shutdown.

That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

It's off the table because I want to know if anyone has something better to put on it.

There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

So is this about the subject at hand, or is it about my attempt to find a situation which will please all parties? The way I look at it is that people will attempt to make vehicles safer, and yet any new gun laws to make guns safer are the beginning of the end of the world for America. When Toyota cars were found to have sticking accelerators leading to accidents, did Toyota shrug and say that there was nothing that could be done about it. Nope, they recalled them and fixed it.
Besides, the next level of car technology might well dramatically reduce vehicle accidents, driverless cars. The Google car has only crashed twice in the time it has been in testing and both times a human was controlling it. When the computer controls it, it has dramatically greater reflexes and situational awareness than a human. It will be interesting when such technology becomes widespread to see how much traffic fatalities reduce.

Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense.

The Gunny disagrees:


http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MVB50.../dp/B001UAMZD4

Subsidize the reduction of price of these safes and there's your home defence in a nutshell. A kid can't get hold of it, nor can a burgular.
Outside of the house, a decent holster will suffice.
It's not that difficult really.

How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here.

Well, to be fair, this thread is entitled "Gun Control thread (merged many)" not "Vehicle safety thread (merged hardly any)" or "Drug abuse thread (merged zero)". So logic dictates that I would talk about morally acceptable solutions in regards to firearms...in a firearms thread.

If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried.

Indeed, although to say that I accept it is perhaps a misnomer. I am no happier about it than I am about a dead kid being shot by a firearm, stabbed by a knife, drowned, electrocuted, eaten by bears, bombed by the USAF or blown up by Daesh. A dead child is a dead child.
If there was a greater drive in the US to improve gun safety rather than this stonewall defence to try and stop any further drives to improve gun safety because it might stop people from enjoying their bits of metal as freely as they do, then we might not be having this conversation.

Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?

Well, has anyone tried enforcing proper gun storage and safety? Has anyone tried enforcing the average gun owner to have the same sort of training and safety conscious attitude to a firearm as they should? Have people tried improving access to mental health (another part of my proposal that people seem to have forgotten in favour of zeroing in on the gun part of it)?

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Most similar incidents I've read about the gun owners are charged which is why I thought this fellow would also be charged. Since he's not being charged it must be local law difference or there is more to the circumstances than has been reported.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

A quick search and it's 14 states that hold parents liable and one state that requires guns to be locked up.

What state requires guns to be locked up? And what do you think would be the effect on these incidents if such laws were made nationwide as opposed to not even a quarter of the nation?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Oberon

What state requires guns to be locked up?

Massachusetts

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...40/Section131L

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Massachusetts

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...40/Section131L

Danke.
I wonder how this has affected incidents in which the under-aged members of a family are able to access their parents firearms for misdemeanours?
Since the 1990s I can only find four school shootings in Massachusetts...but honestly since in more than a few cases the perpatrators of these shootings are legal gun owners the safe gun law wouldn't have prevented it.
That's where better mental health care and attention comes in, but that's a very difficult subject to sort out.

Now, coming back to these 20,000 gun laws...how many of them are individual state laws which are duplicated across states? It's one of the things that has confused me a lot about America how every difficult state has a different law regarding different things, there's very little consistency across state boundaries. Could these 20,000 laws not be streamlined down a little into a few dozen which are nationwide laws rather than individual state laws?

I mean the sort of thing that says:

1) You can't own certain types of weaponry (Surface to Air missiles, nuclear weapons, anti-tank missiles, chemical bombs, that kind of thing)
2) You must register the weapons you do own and provide evidence that you can safely care for them in a manner in which ensures that anyone who is not authorised to operate the firearm cannot access it.
3) You must purchase the firearm in question from a registered firearms dealer.


Anything else that anyone can think of?

[Buddahaid]

You don't need to register your firearms, nor would I even if required to. The state already knows I've bought two through gun stores and have passed the background checks for both. My other guns are inherited or privately purchased used ones and my business only.

I know what you're looking for but I still believe any reasonable new laws would be easily circumvented and just so much TP in the end.

I read a letter to the editor today and someone's great solution was to require gun owners to belong to a well regulated militia. Fine, I'll start one up then.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Not one step back! The line must be drawn here, here and no further! Seriously though, I'm not entirely certain that the moral ground favours such rigid defence, but I guess that is how things are in America and is probably why nothing has gotten done in the States for the past five to six years and why the government seems to be one argument away from another shutdown.

Again you distort what myself and others have told you. Legal gun owners have been stepping back for decades and suddenly to you we're being unreasonable because we don't want to continue stepping back forever until the RKBA is completely gone.

When Toyota cars were found to have sticking accelerators leading to accidents, did Toyota shrug and say that there was nothing that could be done about it. Nope, they recalled them and fixed it.

I guarantee you that if Glock or Ruger found a sticky trigger they would recall and fix it without a law forcing them to do it.

Besides, the next level of car technology might well dramatically reduce vehicle accidents, driverless cars. The Google car has only crashed twice in the time it has been in testing and both times a human was controlling it. When the computer controls it, it has dramatically greater reflexes and situational awareness than a human. It will be interesting when such technology becomes widespread to see how much traffic fatalities reduce.

Heh wouldn't another name for a driverless firearm be "body guard"?

Subsidize the reduction of price of these safes

Good luck with that, they won't even subsidize $5 trigger locks let alone a $200 handgun safe. FWIW a safe with similar unlocking mechanism that is big enough for a shotgun would have been a thousand bucks or more. I guess if they can't take the right away maybe they can just price it out of reach of all but the elite rich would be the idea.

Well, to be fair, this thread is entitled "Gun Control thread (merged many)" not "Vehicle safety thread (merged hardly any)" or "Drug abuse thread (merged zero)". So logic dictates that I would talk about morally acceptable solutions in regards to firearms...in a firearms thread.

You're right although I don't see you post in those type of threads with even close to the frequency and urgency that you do in this one Based on that it seems like you care a lot more about the 100 than the 650. I'm sure that's not how you really feel but the way I see it it does put your comments about acceptable collateral damage into a certain ironic perspective.

If there was a greater drive in the US to improve gun safety rather than this stonewall defence to try and stop any further drives to improve gun safety because it might stop people from enjoying their bits of metal as freely as they do, then we might not be having this conversation.

Really man this isn't about gun safety it's about control over the people. If it were actually about safety then the anti's would abandon their efforts to close this fictitious gun show loop hole and start looking at ways to protect their so called gun free zones and to actually find ways to discourage these monsters from acting in the first place.

Get serious about those things and you might find gun rights supporters more willing to compromise but as long as they continue to try and fix something that would not have prevented these well publicized mass killings but conveniently does include a universal registration scheme which has been long perceived to be the final step before confiscation it's awful hard to trust their motives.

Well, has anyone tried enforcing proper gun storage and safety? Has anyone tried enforcing the average gun owner to have the same sort of training and safety conscious attitude to a firearm as they should?

You get that training when you apply for a concealed carry permit or when you apply for a hunting license. Activities that take you out in public, just like automobiles by the way. But enforcing it though? Your little unarmed council worker is not going to be able walk though the Hood demanding to see everyone's gun safe. This would get ugly quickly.

FWIW you used to get that kind of training in public schools too but the anti's eventually scuppered that idea.

Have people tried improving access to mental health?

Those efforts usually get blocked by the patient privacy advocate lobby. And I guess with good reason seeing how the administration has already tried to take away the gun rights of millions of veterans and seniors for the flimsiest of reasons with no regard for actual risk.