Guns

[Grayfox]

Yep. I mean, if you're going to have guns and children in the same house I'd say that you teach them very early on that under absolutely no circumstances is this something that they're allowed to even think about touching. But at the same time, your responsibility as a parent has to be not to let them be easily accessible.

The boy is certainly old enough to know better, but even so I hope the parents have the book thrown at them for being dumb enough to have a gun that a child could get at. And that's on top of them just losing a daughter too. I really don't understand how people can be so cavalier with a device that they in all likelihood bought specifically for it's ability to cause injury and death.

A simple electronic combination lock box under your bed should be more than enough to keep the gun safe, but allow you to access it in the event you need it at night.

You can tell kids dont touch the gun but they're young, impressionable(a place where the video games cause gun violence may crop in(but then again kids that young shouldn't be playing violent games)).

I dont recall parents of the kids that took their parents gun and went on a massacre at school being charged.

It is about time irresponsible gun owners are charged as an accessory or the full charge of murder.
If no one is hurt, the parents should lose the right to own a gun, in the same way a criminal cant own a gun.

 

[Imari]

It is about time irresponsible gun owners are charged as an accessory or the full charge of murder.
If no one is hurt, the parents should lose the right to own a gun, in the same way a criminal cant own a gun.

If it was up to me, I would say that anything done with a gun registered in your name should be considered a crime you committed, unless it was taken from you by force or some other mitigating circumstance beyond your control. If you lose it, or leave it accessible, that's a failure on your part as an owner of a potentially lethal weapon.

I'm a big fan of the balance of power and responsibility. If you want to wield the power that comes with a firearm, you should be prepared to take appropriate steps to maintain control of that or accept responsibility for anything that happens as a result of your poor judgement. A gun may be a right (in the States at least), but that's not an absolution from making sure that your property is not used to violate the rights of others.

People who own explosives or explosive precursors are required to take steps to secure them and can face prosecution and gaol if they fail to do so. I imagine it's the same for restricted weapons like military firearms or chemical weapons.

You can tell kids dont touch the gun but they're young, impressionable(a place where the video games cause gun violence may crop in(but then again kids that young shouldn't be playing violent games)).

Certainly, but I think nine is old enough to know what you're doing and bear some responsibility. It would be one thing to take the gun out to show his friends and have it go off accidentally, that's a lapse of judgement that you might expect from anyone less experienced with firearms (see the DEA agent who shot himself in the foot). But intentionally firing at your sister is something that even a nine year old knows is wrong, and could reasonably be expected to know what might happen.

Sometimes I think people don't give kids enough credit. Maybe they don't remember what being a kid was like. There's a different between being inexperienced and being hopelessly ignorant. I'd say most kids with an IQ over 70 know exactly what happens when you point a gun at someone else and pull the trigger. The little dude wanted to kill his sister. I imagine that there was probably other stuff going on in that household, very few people are insane enough to snap and kill someone over a video game. But I doubt we'll hear much about that, it'll be drowned out by the usual public figures strutting around with their personal wheelbarrows.

 

[TexRex]

If it was up to me, I would say that anything done with a gun registered in your name should be considered a crime you committed, unless it was taken from you by force or some other mitigating circumstance beyond your control. If you lose it, or leave it accessible, that's a failure on your part as an owner of a potentially lethal weapon.

I'm a big fan of the balance of power and responsibility. If you want to wield the power that comes with a firearm, you should be prepared to take appropriate steps to maintain control of that or accept responsibility for anything that happens as a result of your poor judgement. A gun may be a right (in the States at least), but that's not an absolution from making sure that your property is not used to violate the rights of others.

I'm a big proponent of addressing this matter, and I can't help but think anyone opposed has malicious intent. A record of who owns what does not, in the least, infringe upon anyone's "rights" (whatever you take that to mean) to own, but goes a long way to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of those I suspect most agree should not have access to them. It ups the responsibility factor.

 

[LeMansAid]

If it was up to me, I would say that anything done with a gun registered in your name should be considered a crime you committed, unless it was taken from you by force or some other mitigating circumstance beyond your control. If you lose it, or leave it accessible, that's a failure on your part as an owner of a potentially lethal weapon.

It seems to make sense on the surface, but following the principle right through to it's end means that we would all have probably hundreds of things in our homes that would be potentially lethal weapons. Sure, some of those things might need to be broken (windows, etc.) or otherwise altered in some way to be particularly lethal, or represent a significantly more labour intensive path to causing death (baseball bats, bricks, etc.). We could draw some sort of line there perhaps, but it would be difficult to make a case for the non-equal treatment of say knives and guns. Would we be expected to keep our kitchen knives locked in a safe? What about chainsaws, and other similar tools?

 

[McLaren]

If it was up to me, I would say that anything done with a gun registered in your name should be considered a crime you committed, unless it was taken from you by force or some other mitigating circumstance beyond your control. If you lose it, or leave it accessible, that's a failure on your part as an owner of a potentially lethal weapon.

I'm a big fan of the balance of power and responsibility. If you want to wield the power that comes with a firearm, you should be prepared to take appropriate steps to maintain control of that or accept responsibility for anything that happens as a result of your poor judgement. A gun may be a right (in the States at least), but that's not an absolution from making sure that your property is not used to violate the rights of others.

Reminds me of a friend's father-in-law who was in deep doo doo with ATF as he was a licensed arms dealer who had several higher end firearms at his store. He ran into trouble when a trailer was stolen from his driveway at his home last year and as soon as he reported it, he was contacted if there were any of his firearms inside. Unfortunately, he said there was around 3 or 4 from when he had taken some older family members shooting just days prior. To my understanding, what primarily got him in trouble was that 1 of the weapons ended up being a MP5 valued at $35,000. But for whatever strange reason, while his business was not automatically shut down, he was denied from adding any new inventory to his store effectively putting him on a path to closing as soon as his last weapons were sold.

As I was told recently though, the man passed away from cancer and the business went to his daughter who is trying to expedite the closing since the business itself, is still banned from owning any new weapons. I believe all she has now are handguns & shotguns, with a few ARs on hand; she immediately turned over anything else back to the feds to help resolve the matter.

I'm a big proponent of addressing this matter, and I can't help but think anyone opposed has malicious intent. A record of who owns what does not, in the least, infringe upon anyone's "rights" (whatever you take that to mean) to own, but goes a long way to prevent firearms from ending up in the hands of those I suspect most agree should not have access to them. It ups the responsibility factor.

Excuse my ignorance, but I would assume a record would already be in place for anyone who purchased legally, regardless of weapon tier?

 

[Imari]

We could draw some sort of line there perhaps, but it would be difficult to make a case for the non-equal treatment of say knives and guns.

Not really.

Knives are significantly harder to misuse accidentally, and the effects of knife misuse are on the whole less serious. It's really hard to accidentally kill someone with a knife, and it's pretty hard to even straight up kill someone unless you know what you're doing. This is particularly true for the sorts of knives found in everyday circumstances like a kitchen, you'll note that blades specifically designed for fighting like swords and gravity knives tend to be restricted in a lot of places.

Then there's the additional factor that knives have legitimate usefulness in daily life that warrants accepting additional risk for the benefits of having them easily available. Not having a gun every day is not a problem 99% of the time. Not having a knife or blade would straight up destroy a number of industries and would make simple things like cooking dinner rather more difficult.

So there's two reasons that I feel are compelling for why one might treat regulation of guns and knives differently. Just because something can kill, doesn't mean that it should automatically be regulated. And even if it should be regulated, that doesn't automatically mean you go the whole hog and either ban them or require that they be constantly locked in a safe. Ownership of a 22 bolt action rifle and ownership of a nuclear weapon are both deadly, but there's reasons to treat them differently.

I know you're smarter than to fall into the fallacy of presenting this as black and white.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Choosing to regulate guns more closely doesn't mean that all other weapons must be regulated exactly the same. In fact, choosing to regulate guns in a manner consistent with their utility, function and lethality is an approach that I feel could be applied fairly to any weapon. They wouldn't all be regulated the same, but they would all be assessed in the same manner and a rational set of regulations applied (if necessary) based on the specific characteristics of the weapon.

Is that too sensible, that we consider each weapon individually and treat it appropriately?

 

[LeMansAid]

It depends what conversation we are having here. I thought that...

..... anything done with a gun registered in your name should be considered a crime you committed......

.... clearly suggested that the conversation included situations where a gun was left accessible to another, and that the owner should be held to account in that circumstance. Once the gun/knife/chainsaw is taken, that the owner would only have killed someone if by accident doesn't really factor. It becomes all about what the person with that implement at the time does with it - deeds that the owner would still be held responsible for if we followed through with this setup.

Absolutely we're not going to get many accidental knife deaths, but by my reckoning there is far more in play here.

 

[TexRex]

Excuse my ignorance, but I would assume a record would already be in place for anyone who purchased legally, regardless of weapon tier?

And that's where it stops.

 

[McLaren]

And that's where it stops.

Sad. Great idea not utilized as it should be, it sounds.

 

[Imari]

It depends what conversation we are having here. I thought that...

.... clearly suggested that the conversation included situations where a gun was left accessible to another, and that the owner should be held to account in that circumstance.

Yep.

Once the gun/knife/chainsaw is taken, that the owner would only have killed someone if by accident doesn't really factor. It becomes all about what the person with that implement at the time does with it - deeds that the owner would still be held responsible for if we followed through with this setup.

And here's where you lost it. I thought I was pretty clearly suggesting that guns and knives not be treated the same way. That while you might be held criminally liable for actions performed with your firearm, you might not be held criminally liable for actions performed with your knife. I even pointed out a couple of reasons that a society might choose to treat these items differently, namely consequence and utility.

Is it confusing that one might choose to apply different standards to weapons based on their risk and usefulness? Even if you don't agree, I thought it'd be an easy concept to understand.

I mean, you make it sound like this would be a new idea, but it really isn't. We currently apply vastly different regulations to various types of weapons already, along with vastly different penalties for infractions (or even what is considered to be an infraction). Guns already have different rules to knives and explosives and poisons and boomerangs. I'm simply suggesting that given that all these rules are different already, one might consider an amendment to part of the rules for guns as it might make for a safer society and a more serious approach to gun ownership. Suggesting a change to the set of rules for one type of weapon does not and should not mean that it must also be applied to all other weapons.

In fact, it's not uncommon for the more "serious" types of weapons to come with an expectation of greater security and responsibility on the part of the owner. If you store explosives, you are responsible for having a certain level of security in order to protect those. If you don't and some are stolen, you can be liable, at least in Australia. I would be very surprised if the US is significantly different. Would it be reasonable for guns to be treated similarly? Perhaps not, but it doesn't seem like a concept without value to discuss.

It's actually one of those things where I'm yet to see a reasonable argument against it. If you leave your car at the top of a hill without the brake on, someone bumps it and it rolls down and kills people, you're likely up for manslaughter. That seems fair to me. You left your property in a state that could reasonably have been assumed to be a danger to others given the normal state of affairs it was to be exposed to.

If you don't take reasonable precautions to secure your firearm from misuse, why should you not be liable for the consequences of that? Is it inconvenient to have to keep your gun somewhere safe? What is the reasoning behind not requiring people to be responsible for their firearm? I'm not suggesting that people should be responsible if someone breaks into their gun cabinet and takes it, or picks the trigger lock. I'm suggesting that if you leave it in the closet, or on a table, or anywhere that someone unauthorised could access and use it without any serious effort to overcome precautions then you should be considered at least partially responsible for whatever ensues. Particularly if someone is injured or killed as a result of your negligence.

Don't deflect by bringing other weapons into this or arguing a slippery slope. Explain to me why it's unreasonable to be responsible for your firearm.

 

[eiriksmil]

**** guns, fist fights are where it's at.

 

[Blood Eagle]

All elementary, middle and high schools in a school district in Pennsylvania will have 5 gallon buckets of stones in each classroom to throw at potential shooters.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/students-armed-stones-ditch-plan-ward-off-school/story?id=53961564

As ludicrous as it may seem, I actually kind of like this idea. In any kind of life or death situation, weapons of opportunity can be useful. I guess it's better than the current defense which is no defense. It also gives kids a sense of responsibility associated with taking their and other's lives into their own hands. Interesting concept.

 

[dlshearon]

^ It is sad we’re throwing rocks in America.
We use to teach gun safety in schools, now they teach the opposite.

 

[Rallywagon]

^ It is sad we’re throwing rocks in America.
We use to teach gun safety in schools, now they teach the opposite.

Just the opposite? I dont buy that. I think in schools they are just not taught at all. I dont think that has to do with some PC left agenda though, more likely it has to do with just lack of demand. With or without the gun control nonsense, guns have been declining in popularity. As more people became urban and suburbanites the need for guns declined and that of course led to a decline in the need to teach gun safety in class. Further, i find it highly unlikely teaching gun safety would have any effect on anything happening today anyway. To jump on the ol bandwagon saying, its not like those "gun free zone" signs stopped them....

 

[TexRex]

We use to teach gun safety in schools

Can you provide anything to support this?

now they teach the opposite

What's the opposite of gun safety?

 

[Northstar]

Can you provide anything to support this?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3688072/portraits-of-schoolkids-learning-firearm-safety-in-rural-indiana-1956/?source=dam

Not sure what he is getting at with the second part.

 

[TexRex]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3688072/portraits-of-schoolkids-learning-firearm-safety-in-rural-indiana-1956/?source=dam

👍

Not sure what he is getting at with the second part.

Yeah, I envision teachers instructing students on methods of using firearms to sharpen pencils when their pencil sharpener proves unable to operate effectively.

In all seriousness, it strikes me as an attempt to paint the picture far worse than reality in order to push an agenda.

 

[Michael88]

What's the opposite of gun safety?

Spreading misinformation about firearms and demonizing / condemning gun owners which the media has a masters degree in it. People are less likely to approach other people who own firearms or the local shooting range where they could be taught proper gun safety and answer their technical questions. Instead they get their highly questionable infos from news and media which can be potentially dangerous as they are often outright false and show dangerous and irresponsible gun handling etc.

 

[TexRex]

Spreading misinformation about firearms and demonizing / condemning gun owners which the media has a masters degree in it. People are less likely to approach other people who own firearms or the local shooting range where they could be taught proper gun safety and answer their technical questions. Instead they get their highly questionable infos from news and media which can be potentially dangerous as they are often outright false and show dangerous and irresponsible gun handling etc.

What does any of this have to do with school curriculum? Not addressing the handling of firearms is not the same as promoting or instructing improper handling, which is the actual opposite of gun safety.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Rallywagon]

I'm not big on the blaze, so please excuse, but this had got to be the most ignorant assertion of 2018. https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/...r-in-burglary-says-ar15-made-for-unfair-fight

 

[BobK]

Finally, if you (@BobK) think this particular discussion is better suited to a more appropriate thread (I'm inclined to believe it is), feel free to respond to it there and I won't hesitate to continue. I didn't want to act as such and result in you being less inclined to respond.

I fully agree that this discussion should be in a more appropriate thread; would you agree that the Guns thread is even more appropriate? I can see the merits of it being in either this thread or the America; in any case I've taken the liberty of placing it here. Feel free to move it elsewhere if you think it's better elsewhere.

Would you be so kind as to softball it in for me? While I'm familiar with the overarching theme of the preamble, I'm sorry to say that I'm presently unable to recall it in enough detail to link it to the response provided...and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Sure. I'm referring to the part that says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

It goes on to say further down that

it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government

.

What do you suppose it meant to those responsible for it being drafted?

I'm sorry, I had somehow misread the question as asking about what draftees (conscripts) thought about the Amendment. To answer the actual question which dealt with drafters and not draftees, though, it's been covered at length by Madison and others fairly well I believe and it's been long enough ago since I studied this stuff in civics class that I don't recall who said specifically what. But in general they did express fear and skepticism of a large standing army, true, but they also reinforced the right to self-defense and the words in the DoI preamble.

I can't track down the exact quote, nor who said it, but something along the lines of the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure the First.

I do not feel that a standing army invalidates the need for the Second Amendment.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I fully agree that this discussion should be in a more appropriate thread; would you agree that the Guns thread is even more appropriate? I can see the merits of it being in either this thread or the America; in any case I've taken the liberty of placing it here. Feel free to move it elsewhere if you think it's better elsewhere.



Sure. I'm referring to the part that says:


It goes on to say further down that
.



I'm sorry, I had somehow misread the question as asking about what draftees (conscripts) thought about the Amendment. To answer the actual question which dealt with drafters and not draftees, though, it's been covered at length by Madison and others fairly well I believe and it's been long enough ago since I studied this stuff in civics class that I don't recall who said specifically what. But in general they did express fear and skepticism of a large standing army, true, but they also reinforced the right to self-defense and the words in the DoI preamble.

I can't track down the exact quote, nor who said it, but something along the lines of the purpose of the Second amendment is to ensure the First.

I do not feel that a standing army invalidates the need for the Second Amendment.

I posted this in another thread:

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" clearly said that resisting a tyrannical federal government is the exact reason for the inclusion of the 2A. Which part has been misinterpreted?

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

James Madison - Federalist Papers No. 46

 

[Danoff]

I posted this in another thread:

It's beautiful. I've been eyeing Madison for the greatest thinkers thread btw. I don't think he's next for me though, maybe you'll beat me to it.

 

[Joey D]

The whole thing about the 2A being there to protect against a tyrannical government often confuses me. It'd be next to impossible for American citizens to overthrow the US government since it would essentially be a percentage of the population with limited training and non-heavy weapons, against the largest and more powerful military in the world. Back in the late 1700's, it was more or less a bunch of guys with muskets. The US government now could easily just rollout tanks and bombers to wipe out anyone attempting to overthrow the government.

Even trying to go up against a police force would be incredibly difficult.

Should you be allowed to own a gun to protect yourself, your family, and your property? Absolutely. Is it going to do any good against the government? Not in the slightest.

Although, the likelihood of anyone rising up to overthrow the government is probably nil too. Just looking at the current president, along with the past two, they've all blatantly disregarded the Constitution. What's come of it? Nothing. A tyrannical government would probably emerge without too many people noticing or even caring.

 

[Danoff]

Is it going to do any good against the government? Not in the slightest.

I agree that that reason for the second amendment is no longer as relevant as it used to be. However, an armed US populous would no doubt give a violent takeover a lot of trouble, even if they would be ultimately doomed to failure. Military occupation requires a lot of resources, more so if the population is combative.

It is still your right to stand up to your government though. So I see it as part of a larger reason for the second amendment, self defense against the government. So while you might be ultimately doomed in your attempt, it is still important to recognize your right to defend yourself against a government (or anyone else) that would rob your liberties.

 

[Rallywagon]

Thats also assuming that those in the military would fight for the gov and not the people. Most people in my unit would not turn their weapons on us citizens. I think if it came to that, are talking about civil war at that point, and that would likely split the populace and the military with it.

 

[HP]

Haven’t been here a couple years and just started getting notifications for it, bit of nostalgia.

On topic though, was not the second amendment in relation to slave patrols in Virginia? Did not Virginia only ratify after insisting on their slave patrols (Militia) be “well armed”?

If not then I stand to be corrected but, if so, was not the amendment in question merely a tool to ensure that the cotton fields were able to be “well regulated”?

Let’s not forget that the majority of VA back then was indeed the well tanned folk...

 

[Danoff]

Thats also assuming that those in the military would fight for the gov and not the people. Most people in my unit would not turn their weapons on us citizens. I think if it came to that, are talking about civil war at that point, and that would likely split the populace and the military with it.

I don't have that much trust in the military. Sure the people serving right now might not go for it. But then again, the CIA has been conducting absolutely mind-boggling surveillance, and the police seem to have no trouble beating and shooting innocent people as needed.

When one devotes one's life to a higher purpose (be that religion, nationalism, or the defeat of certain ideals or entities), and especially when that person is ready to lay down their life for that purpose, it's very important that that purpose doesn't overlap with forcing other people to lay down their lives for the same reason. Because it's not really that wild a notion that someone could be convinced that the general population should simply be willing to submit or die for the greater good.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The whole thing about the 2A being there to protect against a tyrannical government often confuses me. It'd be next to impossible for American citizens to overthrow the US government since it would essentially be a percentage of the population with limited training and non-heavy weapons, against the largest and more powerful military in the world. Back in the late 1700's, it was more or less a bunch of guys with muskets. The US government now could easily just rollout tanks and bombers to wipe out anyone attempting to overthrow the government.

Even trying to go up against a police force would be incredibly difficult.

Should you be allowed to own a gun to protect yourself, your family, and your property? Absolutely. Is it going to do any good against the government? Not in the slightest.

Although, the likelihood of anyone rising up to overthrow the government is probably nil too. Just looking at the current president, along with the past two, they've all blatantly disregarded the Constitution. What's come of it? Nothing. A tyrannical government would probably emerge without too many people noticing or even caring.

You say this as if the police force and Military are drones, and thus wouldn't actually break away from said government and side with the people. Not all but obviously some, which has been seen with other hostile governments in modern history. Similar to the original revolution.

Now your final paragraph I'd agree is more likely to be the case, where people are so subservient all around and so entrenched in their day to day, that they don't realize their rights were slowly eroding beneath them.