Guns

[Dennisch]

Guns laws aren't the problem...

^yeah it's the guns

No, it usually is a persons mental state that is the problem. As said before, there are enough tools to take out people, besides firearms.

Suzuki as a weapon.

 

[Ibonibo]

^Imagine he would have been shooting an AK at the same moment...
How much terrorism like that do the old Europe get. It's rare. Germany had a lot of gostriders the last 6 weeks. It's a statistic anormally or spike. It's not like the Dutch family is targeted every 5 years or so...
Though I get the point you wanting to make, it is still rare that cars are used in this manner. You argumented the same way (as me now) when Marco emblemed the drug traficer using his car as danger to habitants in the weed thread

I guess that's not a problem then as guns are fool proof.

The difference beeing the first quote is a teacher opposed to an armed person attacking with all come with it (release of hormones,...)

The second quote is from the guy aiming at a innoncent non armed.

Unrelated.

Again readers are in advantage. Taking out quotes and combining them together to your likening is ...

Of course things have to change. Your way is just wrong and has been proven to be wrong.
At least we agree on that. And that is the most important part. I don't care how the changes happens, it's "your" country. But as long as it happens it's good.

I think if most of us can agree to that, we come a long way (-minus the underlined as just saying you're wrong without having it tried out is ....)

 

[Exorcet]

Unrelated.

Again readers are in advantage. Taking out quotes and combining them together to your likening is ...

No, all I did was point out the inconsistency you're using to twist things to your liking. Either the gun is super easy to use, or it's not. Does pointing and shooting result in a kill 100% time or not? Guns don't become laser guided bombs just because the bad guy is using them.

 

[Zenith]

No, all I did was point out the inconsistency you're using to twist things to your liking. Either the gun is super easy to use, or it's not. Does pointing and shooting result in a kill 100% time or not? Guns don't become laser guided bombs just because the bad guy is using them.

This. I don't understand how guns must be banned because they're too easy to use to kill people yet civilians and teachers couldn't possibly carry and use them because they're so difficult.

 

[Ibonibo]

^And again nobody asked for a ban. Stop inventing and laying words in my mouth. Control is not ban

No, all I did was point out the inconsistency you're using to twist things to your liking

So it's inconsistent to say 2 armed pointing (one beeing determinated to kill the other beeing a taken by surprise)at each other is a different situation that if only one has a gun and the other is unarmed?
Okay?
Can't follow your logic, that would mean that aiming at an can is the same as aiming at a human

 

[Michael88]

@Micheal: You have a gun, yet you are in Europe.

Yeah, sometimes I'm amazed myself that I can own guns here in the EUDSSR, one of the few rights politicians haven't taken a piss on.......yet.
Here in Austria you can own rifles -other than semi-automatic rifles- if you're 18 years or older with a background check and a cooldown of 3 days.

If you want to own pistols or one of the handful of semi automatic military rifles that are allowed here you need to get a license. To obtain said license you need: to be at least 21 years old, a background check, to pass a basic mental health check (Wait, whoa! A gun law that makes real sense?) and a few hundred bucks (currently its a total of 500 bucks I think)

Though we have truckloads of illegal weapons in our country thanks to the close proximity of eastern block countries, the no longer existing borders and high immigration rate.

 

[Dennisch]

a background check, to pass a basic mental health check

This is gun control as it should be.

And yeah, I realize that someone could go nuts long after he obtained his gun and license.

Though we have truckloads of illegal weapons in our country thanks to the close proximity of eastern block countries, the no longer existing borders and high immigration rate.

Here too. Open borders, yeey!

 

[Ibonibo]

@Micheael:
Pretty much like in most European countries.
High calibers are hard to come by. But you want to hunt or go at the shooting range, it's generally no problem if you behaved prior in society and you aren't a total crazy.

That doesn't exclude you snap at a later point(as it already happend, German advocate snapping,). But it already makes it harder to get a gun after you snapped. And not everybody gets one, either because the steps to take are to exaustive, or you are not fit for one.

The problem with the old weaponary coming in is a Euro wide problem. Near my place a guy got stopped, carring 8 ak's in the trunk.

But I sometimes think that the US thinks we have a weapon ban, which is not true. We just regulate it more (for worse or better).

 

[Michael88]

I think its funny how nobody here mentioned Switzerland-. Yeah, that funny little country in the middle of Europe surrounded by high mountains with all their gold and chocolate.
After having completed their mandatory military service Swiss citizen can take home their fully automatic SIG rifles. I have seen people transporting their rifles slung over their shoulders in busses, subways and on cycles in the middle of the city. Nobody gives a damn. No shootings, no hysteria, nothing.
Their gun laws are also extremely loose and many kids at the age of 14 or younger start shooting, its a popular sport over there.

If you would be carrying this weapon like that in public just few hundred miles to the north- east (Germany) entire squads of special forces would beat you silly in a matter of seconds and you'd get locked up for the enxt 7 years easily.

Funny.

My theory is that Switzerland is a rich country, people there are satisfied with the politics, with their working democracy and the current good economy. Nobody is pissed off, nobody snaps.
Its a different situation in the US.

High calibers are hard to come by.

Not really, you can own rifles with calibers up to .416 Barrett (just with a background check) which is a pretty damn powerful round. .50BMG and even more powerful rounds are outlawed though.

 

[Bram Turismo]

@Micheal: You have a gun, yet you are in Europe.

Most people here in Norway own a gun for hunting. But other than last year's Breivik horror, you never hear about a shooting incident over here.

Why is it that all the shooting happen in the US? Because I believe if you put enough effort into, you can get a gun no matter where you live. Is it the way people live in the US? The stress or pressure one faces? I have no idea, but I don't think we will ever stop these kind of things from happening. Drugs are illegal, but yet people die from using drugs every day.

 

[Ibonibo]

^You need to get check ups before too. Alone if you get a few black sheeps with that control, it justifies...

Michael:
While I agree in some part, Switzerland is quite high in the ranking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

but
as mentionned in my other post. Whether the article is from liberals, I don't care the statistic is neutral
http://www.sp-ps.ch/ger/Medien/Comm...-setzt-desto-weniger-Schusswaffentote-gibt-es

Very high gun related suicide rate too

and a lot of them don't keep them anymore at home. Alone the families wishes that often (the wifes often don't like having a weapon in the cellar).

So they seem to get the problem under control.
But with the sheer number of guns ratio it is still quite low, I agree.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Incorrect.

Some use of a gun is the best way to defend yourself from almost all forms of attack.

Every single time the UK enacted gun control measures crime went up. Almost every time a US state enacts measures that lessen gun control, crime goes down.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

You keep applying your intuition to situations involving firearms. This intuition disagrees with statistics and the results of millions of concealed carry and home invasion shootings. How much experience do you have with firearms? You seem to think that being utterly defenseless in an assault situation is better defense than owning a gun.

Whilst the table (though I don't understand what the various number represent particularly) is interesting, you're right, it goes against my personal intuition, I'm basing my own opinions on what I think I'd do, this is also partly based on me (unarmed-ish) successfully defending myself from two muggers (also unarmed, but obviously out numbering me) - and since you asked I have no first hand experience of firearms other than clay pigeon shooting. I saw more guns in one go walking into the Bass Pro Shop in OKC than I've collectively seen anywhere else at anytime.

As far as the UK laws go according to the link you gave in 2008 the US had 10,886 homicides by shooting. In England and Wales we had 129 (UK GOV ONS)... Maybe our laws aren't perfect, but you're still a lot less likely to get shot over here.

The point were we actually begin taking down public officials is still a ways off, but when that time comes, we'll be ready to take our country back.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to this... 'when'? You've so little faith in your system that you believe it's inevitable that you will have to start 'taking down' (I assuming you mean shooting) public officials..... ? No wondering you're worried about getting black-bagged in the middle of the night!

Last I checked, getting murdered in ones sleep wasn't epidemic in the US. And the last time a mad gunman showed up in the UK, no one could do much about it.

Oh yeah, Inevitably there is some gun crime and whilst Raul Moat is one of very few examples, you're really picking the wrong day to compare, with all your guns you (as a nation) still can't stop classrooms full of kids getting shot.


Besides all of that, I've not said I think firearms should be banned in the US. And though I'm happy enough with how things work in the UK, I understand that in the US it's impossible to remove the guns from the hands of people that will do wrong with them, and as such a ban won't really help. I don't know what to suggest that would work, but if you give more people more guns, where does it stop?


Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

 

[Bram Turismo]

How about we make every bullet cost 5,000 dollars?

 

[FoolKiller]

Guns owned by sane, properly trained people murder no one, and are effective self-defense.
Guns used by crazy people are used to kill many with no regard.

Which variable changed? It isn't the gun.

Let's try fixing the real problem. Mental health is clearly a problem and too often we don't want to address it or the parenting in this country leads to a kids that grow up feeling entitled and filled with rage at the world for not giving them everything they want.

Until we fix our parenting and become better at diagnosing and treating mental illness no amount of gun control will stop things like this. Our current system, via regulations and government health plans like Medicaid rely on a primary care physician to diagnose a possible mental or emotional disorder and then refer the patient to a mental health professional. But our primary care physicians have zero mental health training, so they rely on family members or the patient to tell them about a problem. Again, people who are either untrained or too embarrassed to bring this stuff up.

In a country where traditional crime is decreasing but violent tragic crimes and suicides are becoming more frequent it is obvious the guns aren't the trouble. Take them out of the hands of someone in a mentally unstable depressed rage and you still have someone who is in a mentally unstable depressed rage, and they will do something to release their emotional turmoil.

We have to fix the illness, not the symptom.

 

[Zenith]

Whilst the table (though I don't understand what the various number represent particularly) is interesting, you're right, it goes against my personal intuition, I'm basing my own opinions on what I think I'd do, this is also partly based on me (unarmed-ish) successfully defending myself from two muggers (also unarmed, but obviously out numbering me) - and since you asked I have no first hand experience of firearms other than clay pigeon shooting. I saw more guns in one go walking into the Bass Pro Shop in OKC than I've collectively seen anywhere else at anytime.

Wait did you just concede a point? On the internet?

As far as the UK laws go according to the link you gave in 2008 the US had 10,886 homicides by shooting. In England and Wales we had 129 (UK GOV ONS)... Maybe our laws aren't perfect, but you're still a lot less likely to get shot over here.

But it's not about how many people are shot. It's about violent crimes in general. I don't care if I'm murdered, robbed, or raped by someone wielding a knife or a gun. The violation of my rights is the same.

How about we make every bullet cost 5,000 dollars?

Yes that ole Chris Rock line. How does that help? I was going to go on a murderous rampage but now I won't because using a gun would cost too much? If anything it'll make the shooting even sweeter for the crazies.

It also opens up a massive hole for the black market and punishes shooters like me, Michael88, and a6m5. That's like solving drunk driving by taxing the hell out of a gasoline.

 

[Ibonibo]

Foolkiller:
But the US citizen are already greatly torn when it comes to questions about basic health care.

most people with those conditions said in your post, often live in difficult conditions.

Who will pay for all the related cost to mental illness?

If you hospitals barely treat poor people for vital illnesses, what about the not live endangerment illnesses like depression?

Meds are not cheap too for some of those illnesses and treatement is very long if curable at all, so life long treatement with living costs all paid by the US society?

I don't care if I'm murdered, robbed, or raped

I rather be robbed than murdered honestly

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wait did you just concede a point? On the internet?

Like I say, I'm not about to lobby for a ban on guns, and I have an open mind, but I do not believe a society where guns are easily available to both law-abiding citizens and therefore also any criminal is safer than a society where only the police carry guns.

But it's not about how many people are shot. It's about violent crimes in general. I don't care if I'm murdered, robbed, or raped by someone wielding a knife or a gun. The violation of my rights is the same.

If you are murdered you are unlikely to be worrying about your rights. If you are robbed or raped by someone wielding a weapon you're still alive, you might have had you rights (or something else) violated by another individual, but you will still live to see your family and friends grow up and grow old - if you got shot, that's it, finito, you're dead. I know which I'd rather.

 

[Sam48]

I genuinely don't know how to respond to this... 'when'? You've so little faith in your system that you believe it's inevitable that you will have to start 'taking down' (I assuming you mean shooting) public officials..... ? No wonder you're worried about getting black-bagged in the middle of the night!

*Once again points to the Benghazi/Middle East*

Are you completely oblivious to what's happening in the Middle East? Have you not seen what happens when a government with no respect for its people comes into power? People in the Middle East are murdering their public officials (And ours). Have you not seen the same implications slowly seeping there way into first world countries through less provocative ways with bills/orders like the NDAA, HR.654, The Patriot Act, and the war on the 2nd amendment?

The founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment because they they saw first hand what happens when government over extends its reach, and they most definitely expected the United States to do the same. Because in those days, the sun never set upon the British Empire. When you've come to experience propper tyranny executed by public officials, you'll understand why.

 

[Zenith]

If you are murdered you are unlikely to be worrying about your rights. If you are robbed or raped by someone wielding a weapon you're still alive, you might have had you rights (or something else) violated by another individual, but you will still live to see your family and friends grow up and grow old - if you got shot, that's it, finito, you're dead. I know which I'd rather.

Most people survive handgun wounds, but that's not the point.

My point is that robbers, rapists, and murders use firearms as a meas to an end. To say that gun control worked because there's less gun crime is to miss the point. We need to look at all violent crime. If a murderer used a gun before the ban but a car after the ban, gun crime went down, but murder did not.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I know which I'd rather.

I'd say that you don't know which you'd rather. Until it happens, you don't know how you will react. For all you know, you could hit extreme mental lows and suffer for years and eventually kill yourself. Suffering like that is no life worth living.

I think FoolKiller hit the nail on the head, but he never said making those changes would be quick or easy. Often the most worthwhile actions are the most difficult and time-consuming to implement.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Most people survive handgun wounds, but that's not the point.

My point is that robbers, rapists, and murders use firearms as a meas to an end. To say that gun control worked because there's less gun crime is to miss the point. We need to look at all violent crime. If a murderer used a gun before the ban but a car after the ban, gun crime went down, but murder did not.

Yes but the people that survive hand gun wounds don't contribute to the number of people killed either, so either way the number of deaths attributed to guns in the US is still massive. Also, I'm not about to go digging that deep into the stats but pretty much each time we have an election the government reclassifies what it regards as violent crime, so the numbers are a little harder to interpret.

I'd say that you don't know which you'd rather. Until it happens, you don't know how you will react. For all you know, you could hit extreme mental lows and suffer for years and eventually kill yourself. Suffering like that is no life worth living.

I understand what you are saying, but for all I know I might meet the girl of my dreams tomorrow, get married, have a couple of kids and live happily ever after. If I'm dead, I probably won't. I've only ever been the victim of crime twice, one mugging and one car theft, so maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[Ardius]

So if you want to live in a world where nobody ever has to defend themselves, what's wrong with me wanting a gun for fun? I wouldn't use it to hurt anyone.

See, you think that we can create a society where nobody hurts each other by taking away people's ability to hurt each other. This is impossible unless you lock us all up in padded cells.

Pro-gun people want to create a society where nobody hurts each other by taking away people's desire to hurt each other.

No, you miss the point of what I was trying to say - I don't see guns as an answer to the problem or a cause of the problem.
To me, I don't see a "need" to have a gun. I'd rather have people concern themselves with reducing and preventing crime in general, so that the situations where I have to defend myself are less likely..removing the need for any weapon in self-defense.

I don't consider arming the populace as helping prevent crime. It is basically irrelevant whether people have guns or not - I don't see much proof that it helps prevent crime or causes more.

To me, this issue is similar to the question of vigilantes. The question shouldn't have to be asked in the first place - society should do all that it can to prevent the need for the average person to have to take these measures. We should be doing all that we can to try to avoid the need, not just accept it as some fact of life.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Yes that ole Chris Rock line. How does that help? I was going to go on a murderous rampage but now I won't because using a gun would cost too much? If anything it'll make the shooting even sweeter for the crazies.

It also opens up a massive hole for the black market and punishes shooters like me, Michael88, and a6m5. That's like solving drunk driving by taxing the hell out of a gasoline.

Quick tip: I was making a joke.

 

[Danoff]

To me, I don't see a "need" to have a gun.

Human rights - you have a right to defend yourself. The government is not allowed to disarm you.

I'd rather have people concern themselves with reducing and preventing crime in general, so that the situations where I have to defend myself are less likely..removing the need for any weapon in self-defense.

Why not both?

I don't consider arming the populace as helping prevent crime. It is basically irrelevant whether people have guns are not - I don't see much proof that it helps prevent crime or causes more.

Imbalance in the ability to produce force enables crime. Guns equalize the ability to produce force. In the absence of any weapons, 20 year old 180 lb male has the ability to rob 80 year old granny with no contest. This gives 20 year old 180 lb males the option to do so, and some of them will choose that option.

Put a gun in the 20 year old and 80 year old's hands, and now it's a lot tougher to see who has the upper hand. Suddenly granny doesn't look nearly as much like a target, and robbing her can cost dearly.

This is basic reasoning.

 

[Slash]

No, it usually is a persons mental state that is the problem. As said before, there are enough tools to take out people, besides firearms.

Suzuki as a weapon.

This.

 

[FoolKiller]

Foolkiller:
But the US citizen are already greatly torn when it comes to questions about basic health care.

No, they are torn about who should pay for basic healthcare. The only questions about actual healthcare procedures (nearly all of which are done by private doctors) are ones where religion and standard practice intersect, such as birth control, abortion, and even things like blood transfusion. You are confusing our socio-economic debate with a nearly non-existent scientific debate.

most people with those conditions said in your post, often live in difficult conditions.

Name the economic conditions of the last three mass shooters. I know for a fact this latest one had wealthy parents. Or at least one was. You really think ultra poor raging teens can afford hundreds of dollars worth of guns, ammo, and armor?

Not that it has to matter. Most US schools, public and private, have a counselor with some form of therapist training on staff at no additional charge. These people mainly deal with intermediating disputes and relationship break ups. But occasionally they do try and work with troubled kids. Maybe they need better training for identifying early warning signs. I don't know exactly what their training entails.

Who will pay for all the related cost to mental illness?

What do I want or what would actually happen? So long as the ACA exists in the US the taxpayers will pay for the poor and the rich will pay for their own. But if it were still private the families would. And for those who can't, you would be amazed at how many social workers volunteer to work with kids daily. I know the international image of the US is a bunch of greedy, gun-toting vigilantes, but you would be amazed how many kids are helped to avoid violent adolescent and adult lives by community center programs and organizations such as Big Brother/Big Sisters. Many of these programs contain social workers trained specifically in child and teen development. I have yet to hear about a mass shooter who was on the community center basketball team or was a little brother.

If you hospitals barely treat poor people for vital illnesses, what about the not live endangerment illnesses like depression?

Are you claiming depression isn't a life threatening condition? Shame on you. Despite popular belief, suicide is not the result of bullying.

That said, the answer is addressed in my response to who pays for it. If our government isn't forcing me to pay for it, there are many mental health professionals weighed down by a burden of excessive sympathy and willing to volunteer. In fact, sympathy is basically a job requirement.

Meds are not cheap too for some of those illnesses and treatement is very long if curable at all, so life long treatement with living costs all paid by the US society?

I'm trying to figure out where I said that. All I said was the real problem needs to be addressed. The how and costs can be debated.

But if you want my opinion, we have recommendations for certain testing and vaccinations at certain age points. Why not recommend a counseling session be done at age 14 and 17 (maybe 20 as well)? Just a recommendation, like the HPV vaccine or a colonoscopy. I'm not suggesting regulating it or having government do it. In fact, I want government, through some deregulation and a change in Medicaid rules, to allow people to seek mental health treatment without having to talk to a PCP that isn't trained to diagnose it. In Kentucky, I have attended workforce conferences that included mental health professionals. They all would like to be able to be a part of free clinics, local health departments, and/or be allowed to accept Medicare/Medicaid patients on a case by case basis, without a PCP referral. Currently patients must be referred and if they take a government program they can't choose cases based on priority.

But I don't care how it gets paid for right now.

My whole entire point is that when it comes to tragedies like this, NFL player murder-suicides, or whatever other similar instances you can think of, no matter your stance on guns, arguing about guns is just pissing into the wind. It's like handing a guy with pneumonia a cough drop and a Tylenol. The disease is still there and it will still kill. If you are satisfied with "at least he won't kill 20 kids" you just want a soapbox to stand on, because you are saying only killing two or three, and maiming 20 others is acceptable. No it is not.

Like I say, I'm not about to lobby for a ban on guns, and I have an open mind, but I do not believe a society where guns are easily available to both law-abiding citizens and therefore also any criminal is safer than a society where only the police carry guns.

Knowing some of the police I know, and seeing the stuff citizens put on YouTube, I'd argue for disarming police first.

If you are murdered you are unlikely to be worrying about your rights.

Kill everyone [/Human Rights Thread]

If you are robbed or raped by someone wielding a weapon you're still alive, you might have had you rights (or something else) violated by another individual, but you will still live to see your family and friends grow up and grow old - if you got shot, that's it, finito, you're dead. I know which I'd rather.

The ignorance in this paragraph hurts. I hope you are using hyperbole and not being serious. I knew a guy robbed in Seattle and hit on the back of the head with a black jack. He was in a coma for three years before dying a vegetable. I know many soldiers with bullet scars who are alive to tell you about them. And former Vice President Dick Cheney shot a friend of his in the face with a shotgun in a hunting accident. His friend was able to publicly say he forgave Vice President Cheney.

You can be killed when robbed with something other than a gun. And a bullet wound is not finito, unless you don't know what youbarectalking about or purposely exaggerating.

Sometimes just restraining someone incorrectly can kill them. Sometimes you can survive a headshot.

 

[priesty_lfc]

I read from the recent shooting that when he was found he had 2 hand guns and an assault rifle all of which were registered to him mum. Is that correct?

If so, do you you not think that is a little over the top? If Americans are so determined to have gun to 'protect them from the government' then why can it not be limited to 1 hand gun per house old?

Bring in more checks against the owner of the house and some kind of servicing where every year you take your weapon to be checked and have re evaluation on your mental health.

Yes this would be a hell of a lot of work but at least there would be done control over official guns and a record of health and also create thousands of extra jobs.

Also if your weapon is used to comment a crime the person who carried it out is charged (if they don't end up killing them self) but also the owner of the gun. It's your right to protect yourself yes, but doesn't mean you should be a threat to others.

 

[FoolKiller]

I read from the recent shooting that when he was found he had 2 hand guns and an assault rifle all of which were registered to him mum. Is that correct?

I do not know about the assault rifle, ,but I have heard the same about the hand guns.

If so, do you you not think that is a little over the top? If Americans are so determined to have gun to 'protect them from the government' then why can it not be limited to 1 hand gun per house old?

If the point is to be prepared to defend yourself against the government, which controls the army, how is that over the top? Last I checked, not even most police officers own just a single gun.

Bring in more checks against the owner of the house and some kind of servicing where every year you take your weapon to be checked and have re evaluation on your mental health.

This would have done what in this situation exactly? The mom checks out. Yay. Oops, son stole the guns.

Yes this would be a hell of a lot of work but at least there would be done control over official guns and a record of health and also create thousands of extra jobs.

First, the jobs would be pointless if it is run by government. They would be paid for with money taken from the economy. Zero gain. You could have them just dig holes and fill them back in all day and have the same economic effect.

And we do have some control over official guns now, with waiting periods for criminal background checks. You now propose home inspections and psych evals? Why not just throw in a strip search and drug test for good measure?

Also if your weapon is used to comment a crime the person who carried it out is charged (if they don't end up killing them self) but also the owner of the gun. It's your right to protect yourself yes, but doesn't mean you should be a threat to others.

So, some guy breaks into my home, takes a crowbar or drill to my safe, gets my guns, and then kills someone with it before I ever get home. I'm guilty of murder?

If someone steals your car for a joy ride you should pay for all the traffic fines too?

Jesus Christ, man! You propose completely invading privacy and charging people with crimes because they were the victim of a connected crime.

And in this case, how exactly do you convict the mother? She's dead.

 

[Zenith]

Priestly, did you think about what you posted? None of that makes any sense...

 

[priesty_lfc]

I do not know about the assault rifle, ,but I have heard the same about the hand guns.

If the point is to be prepared to defend yourself against the government, which controls the army, how is that over the top? Last I checked, not even most police officers own just a single gun.

This would have done what in this situation exactly? The mom checks out. Yay. Oops, son stole the guns.

First, the jobs would be pointless if it is run by government. They would be paid for with money taken from the economy. Zero gain. You could have them just dig holes and fill them back in all day and have the same economic effect.

And we do have some control over official guns now, with waiting periods for criminal background checks. You now propose home inspections and psych evals? Why not just throw in a strip search and drug test for good measure?

So, some guy breaks into my home, takes a crowbar or drill to my safe, gets my guns, and then kills someone with it before I ever get home. I'm guilty of murder?

If someone steals your car for a joy ride you should pay for all the traffic fines too?

Jesus Christ, man! You propose completely invading privacy and charging people with crimes because they were the victim of a connected crime.

And in this case, how exactly do you convict the mother? She's dead.

Using iPhone so not going to quote each section.

I don't understand why you feel you need to protect yourself from the government as why would they be a threat? Doesn't make sense.

Why was it so easy for the son to steal the guns? In the UK Shotguns (Which you can have a licence for) have to be kept in an police approved gun safe, if you don't have one you don't get the gun. Why would the son need access to her gun/guns? He wouldn't so he shouldn't have been able to get them.

In your scenario that happened then no you wouldn't as you have taken all reasonable action to prevent some one getting your weapons and could prove that. If you left them in your dinning room and someone stole them why not? Your failure to follow a procedure has resulted in the incident.

If you give your keys to someone and they get speeding tickets yes you should pay the fines, if your car is stolen and gets speeding fines then no. It's not a hard concept.

And yeah, drug tests should taken!