Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

They had 10 years under the Clinton AWB to prove their way was the right way and they failed.

I don't see why we should give them any more.

There are some regulations that could reduce crime/injury. UBCs have wide spread support, and could reduce illegal sales. Mandatory training could help prevent accidents.

[Wildtree]

Was this one posted already?. I didn't see it on the last pages here from today....

Dis-FUCKING-gusting!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...120-story.html

[Stormdash]

Was this one posted already?. I didn't see it on the last pages here from today....

Dis-FUCKING-gusting!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...120-story.html

It's an awful story that should probably result in criminal charges for the gunowner, maybe criminally negligent homicide... but obviously which should have no effect whatsoever on the ownership rights of any other gunowner.

[TITAN308]

It's an awful story that should probably result in criminal charges for the gunowner, maybe criminally negligent homicide... but obviously which should have no effect whatsoever on the ownership rights of any other gunowner.

Pretty much this.

If that same 5 year old got into a car that was left running and accidently put it into reverse and ran over a baby people wouldn't be demanding cars be banned or regulated further.

Guns are an easy target for those who can easily be manipulated with emotion.

[Wildtree]

It's an awful story that should probably result in criminal charges for the gunowner, maybe criminally negligent homicide... but obviously which should have no effect whatsoever on the ownership rights of any other gunowner.

Oh yes it should have an effect....
But... Not an effect on whether you can have gun/s but HOW.
Such things should never happen.
The problems I see is, that it is human nature to act bare any logic but stupid.
And unfortunately for every smart responsible person, there's at least one idiot that defies all logic.
To prevent stupidity regulation needs to be in place.
Why so? It should be very obvious really...
Plus, I agree with your "judgement". But without regulations, there won't be any charges at all.
It's an accident... Let's move on. That's how it's likely going to be treated.

[Stormdash]

Regulation doesn't prevent stupidity. Stupid people are the most ingenious actors there are. "The problem with making something completely foolproof," you may have heard the expression, "is that you always underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." All regulating toward the exception does consistently and reliabl, is stand on the neck of the people that don't actually need their hand held to get across the busy streets of life.

Incidentally, there needs to be no gun-specific regulation for the gunowner and/or responsible adult in this situation to be charged with something, because ideas like criminal negligence apply to pretty much the entire array of human conduct.

About the only way I can think of where there is no criminal liability here would be if --

A) Grandfather didn't know that the children were visiting or even might be visiting in the foreseeable future (meaning he wasn't necessarily negligent in where or how he stored the gun) *and*
B) Mother didn't know and/or had no reason to inquire that there was a gun where the children might find it (meaning she wasn't necessarily negligent in her supervision).

But barring that, one or both of them could be prosecuted.

[Ghostpanther]

Then go convince 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures, or conventions in 3/4ths of the states. Or if you like, convince 2/3rds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, propose that one, and again convince 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions in the states to ratify it.

And if your argument isn't compelling enough to do that, it must not be worth embodying in the law.

This is something a lot of other people in countries outside the US seem to have a problem grasping. They think it is not a hard thing to do. Most people here are comfortable with the US Constitution as is and when most want a change, then there is a process which it can be changed. Until those circumstances are clear for most to feel a need to, not going to happen. Period. Which our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to design into as a way to amend the Constitution, to avoid such emotional knee jerk reactions we often see.

[Stormdash]

This is something a lot of other people in countries outside the US seem to have a problem grasping. They think it is not a hard thing to do. Most people here are comfortable with the US Constitution as is and when most want a change, then there is a process which it can be changed. Until those circumstances are clear for most to feel a need to, not going to happen. Period. Which our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to design into as a way to amend the Constitution, to avoid such emotional knee jerk reactions we often see.

Heck, we're within a handful of states having current requests of having a national convention for the proposal of amendments; if someone wanted to put repeal of the 2nd Amendment in some form or another on the table at such a convention, and the delegates endorsed the proposal, it would go out to the states for ratification. But I doubt it would even get proposed by the convention because of lack of actual popular support.

[petej0]

Was this one posted already?. I didn't see it on the last pages here from today....

Dis-FUCKING-gusting!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...120-story.html

It is sick, and it it a result of irresponsibility. People are going to do dumb things.

Did you see this one yesterday?

Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsAMSQ13bY Warning, it may be disturbing to some.

[THE Bigzoman]

It is sick, and it it a result of irresponsibility. People are going to do dumb things.

Did you see this one yesterday?

Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bsAMSQ13bY Warning, it may be disturbing to some.

The "You shouldn't have shot him" and the "Why didn't you shoot to impair" knows no limits.

[Rukentuts]

Oh yes it should have an effect....
But... Not an effect on whether you can have gun/s but HOW.
Such things should never happen.
The problems I see is, that it is human nature to act bare any logic but stupid.
And unfortunately for every smart responsible person, there's at least one idiot that defies all logic.
To prevent stupidity regulation needs to be in place.
Why so? It should be very obvious really...
Plus, I agree with your "judgement". But without regulations, there won't be any charges at all.
It's an accident... Let's move on. That's how it's likely going to be treated.

Stormdash repeatedly argues for possession of weaponized security blankets that positively correlate to homicide. He doesn't care about net damage or lives lost. But at least he is honest about it.

[Stormdash]

Stormdash repeatedly argues for possession of weaponry zed security blankets that positively correlate to homicide. He doesn't care about net damage or lives lost.

Sure, why not? Not like convincing you is an intellectual hurdle any self-respecting person should worry about. I also drink the blood of the young in my coffee, Tuts.

I care about lives and rights, and for that matter, responsibility. Criminals are responsible for their criminal acts. Responsible citizens are not responsible for the criminal acts of others. It's not complicated. For other people.

[Tinykong]

Stormdash repeatedly argues for possession of weaponized security blankets that positively correlate to homicide. He doesn't care about net damage or lives lost. But at least he is honest about it.

Do Pappy's shotguns count as weaponized security blankets? Or is this limited to just other firearms?

[Stormdash]

By the way, the blood-garnished coffee? NOT fair trade, either.

[Rukentuts]

Sure, why not? Not like convincing you is an intellectual hurdle any self-respecting person should worry about. I also drink the blood of the young in my coffee, Tuts.

I care about lives and rights, and for that matter, responsibility. Criminals are responsible for their criminal acts. Responsible citizens are not responsible for the criminal acts of others. It's not complicated. For other people.

Lol you care about "lives" yet argue for correlations to homicide. Talk about an oxymoron.

[Stormdash]

Lol you care about "lives" yet argue for correlations to homicide. Talk about an oxymoron.

*sips blood coffee*

Ahhhh...

Actually my principle argument is and has been that your flogged-to-death, clearly the only club you have in the bag (or round you have in the cylinder, for a more thread appropriate metaphor) correlation is a tangential and unpersuasive argument for depriving millions of responsible citizens with their own rights and endangering their lives that they can and do use their guns to protect from time to time. All fapping to your correlation ultimately means is that you think the lives of anyone killed by a criminal using a gun illegally is worth more than the life of anyone who could or has been saved by a responsible citizen using their gun legally.

[Rukentuts]

*sips blood coffee*

Ahhhh...

Actually my principle argument is and has been that your flogged-to-death, clearly the only club you have in the bag (or round you have in the cylinder, for a more thread appropriate metaphor) correlation is a tangential and unpersuasive argument for depriving millions of responsible citizens with their own rights and endangering their lives that they can and do use their guns to protect from time to time. All fapping to your correlation ultimately means is that you think the lives of anyone killed by a criminal using a gun illegally is worth more than the life of anyone who could or has been saved by a responsible citizen using their gun legally.

Ah yes, so now we need to move the goalposts for what qualifies as a life. Because the greater number doesn't mean shit, apparently.

[Tinykong]

Ah yes, so now we need to move the goalposts for what qualifies as a life. Because the greater number doesn't mean shit, apparently.

A criminal's life has less value to society than a productive person.

[Mayhem]

Does the Constitutional right to bear arms extend to criminals, as well?

Or, are you really just asking for stiffer regulations, with no need to change the Constitution.

if regulations that can reduce firearm violence are possible without changing the 2nd then there obviously is no need to change the 2nd

[Tinykong]

if regulations that can reduce firearm violence are possible without changing the 2nd then there obviously is no need to change the 2nd

Not in PRE911's opinion.