I don't see this at all, and you don't provide any support for the position. On what possible basis, tort or contractual, would such a liability be said to exist? It doesn't make sense.
What it DOES sound like is a dishonest workaround to try and target gun manufacturers and sellers instead of bad actors.
I'm curious - what magical wand are you going to wave that makes 310 million firearms suddenly disappear from North America? How exactly do you think that's going to work in reality?
Jun 15, 16 3:08 pm ·
·
tduds,
But it sure raises the effort threshold considerably. Isn't that a worthy goal?
gwharton: Honestly, I have no idea. But just because I don't know doesn't mean we can't - as a nation - have a productive conversation about it. That's what frustrates me most about this stupid debate: everytime it comes up the response is always something along the lines of "We can't magically fix everything, so it's useless to try anything."
I've been skimming this thread and I gotta say, I find both sides to be annoyingly righteous and talking past each other with "All or Nothing" scenarios that do nothing but distract from the fact that there really is a problem here and it needs to be addressed.
"culture is to blame" Fixed that for you Non... Basically, you'll have f*cktards statistically no matter what we're talking; drugs, cars, blow up dolls, etc. that will use it in a way society can not tolerate. I'll be honest here... I was all for stricter gun controls, but the f*cktard "ban 'em all" shouting has pushed me to the other side. I do believe there is less and less middleground the longer this conversation continues as hard lines get drawn.
Easiest way I can think of is to expand current restrictions.
So, you expand the ammo laws to include fairly common rounds down to non-lethal stopping rounds. A proper license (which includes a thorough background check, and a current hunting license can purchase proper lethal rounds). Example is a fragable round like the glazer; think buckshot in a polymer resin that breaks apart when it hits something; big shallow wounds and a large energy transfer for stopping power. Might skirt the 2nd amendment.
You expand the "automatic weapon" clauses to define a fire rate limit before it becomes a ?Class 3? weapon. I don't know what is reasonable, but 1 per second might be too slow to be adequate in home defense. It's more for the spray and pray sorts of shootings.
And you fund and allow studies to happen which also requires some database establishment; What local regulations work, what doesn't, where the problems are, etc.
It won't stop the one on one killings, but might put a dent in the mass shootings.
I'm curious - what magical wand are you going to wave that makes 310 million firearms suddenly disappear from North America? How exactly do you think that's going to work in reality?
You won't unless you start confiscating (which will never happen). Yet, you also don't want to add more into circulation; So that's why you increase regulations. It's also why I think you go after the ammo. Ammo has a shelf life and stockpiles get slowly used up. It doesn't solve the immediate problem... nothing will. You play the long game so in a decade you might see less of this..
Gwharton, I think you are right. I understand the free will argument that you obviously cannot control what someone else does with their free will. A person could be totally law abiding then snap and do something crazy, why should the seller be held responsible for that?
I do however think that gun manufactures and sellers have some responsibility. The responsibility is inherent in the product they are selling. It is a potentially dangerous device. A tool that helps incentivize that responsibility is needed to balance the incentive to make as much money as possible by selling as many guns as possible.
There is definitely a problem with gun violence in the United States. There is absolutely no question about that and I have never once denied it or tried to dodge it. In fact, there is a serious problem with violence per se, not just violence involving guns. Violent crime has been on the decline for nearly 20 years now, which is good, but it started from a high level and still remains high despite the decline.
The problem comes from using guns as a talisman for discussing the violence, who's perpetrating it, and why. It's pure magical thinking and not even a little bit productive. All heat, no light.
If you're serious about really addressing violence in America, I commend you. But as part of really doing that, NOTHING is off the table. Not guns. Not government policies. Not law enforcement priorities. And not demographics or culture either.
There are also certain realities that need to be acknowledged. The fact that banning guns in the USA is essentially impossible even if we tossed the Constitution and gave Obama carte blanche to order the Army to go out and collect them all tomorrow. Just plain-old impossible.
If it's just going to be about the symbolism of banning AR15s because they look all black and scary and movie villains use them, then there's nothing to discuss. At that point, it's just about social signalling to partisan biases.
Mass shootings, especially ones perpetrated by suburban teenagers would likely be thwarted as they probably lack the will or criminal connections to purchase illegal guns. I don't see it stopping general gun crimes perpetrated by criminals. The big uncertain is whether it will cause a black market to develop. I'd say it probably would. Could this make the problem worse? Maybe..
The problem comes from using guns as a talisman for discussing the violence, who's perpetrating it, and why. It's pure magical thinking and not even a little bit productive. All heat, no light.
But I think we as existing gun owners as well as the manufactures, and sellers are complicit in creating that culture of violence whether we like it or not. And as a result of benefiting from that culture have a responsibility to contribute towards curbing its negative effects
The black market already exists, so there's no question about that.
Mass shootings are an infinitessimally small number of gun crimes in the United States. And of mass shootings, those perpetrated by whacked-out teenagers are an even tinier fraction. They're sensational, horrific, and get lots of news coverage, but numerically are almost irrelevant in a nation of 320-something million people.
How about you cease production and sale of everything other than hunting rifles. Register all guns and grand-father existing law-abiding gun nuts but restrict the carry, transportation and use of such murderous tools to appropriate gun ranges. Cease all private sales unless under careful government oversight and limit maximums for ammunition hoarding (zero would be a great number to start at) and anyone caught outside of the rules has his/her privileges revoked for life and any crime committed with a firearm (fired or not) results in the immediate castration (or female equivalent) of the fucktard in front of their children.
Jun 15, 16 3:31 pm ·
·
tduds,
You are not interested in discussing things with people who don't agree.
i'm not a sheep, a wolf, or a dog. but i'm with Tduds. I'm also the best one!
also, law abiding people fighting illegal gun violence with more gun violence does nothing to address the problem of why there is illegal gun violence to begin with.
Rick: No. You, specifically. I'm perfectly happy to engage with gwharton as he's been relatively informed and I understand his angle.
To the best of my ability (which will probably falter eventually) this post is the last time I'm going to acknowledge your existence on this or any other forum. You are toxic. Find something better to do with your life.
let's hear more about this mountain lion stalking. sounds interesting.
Jun 15, 16 3:50 pm ·
·
Rick: No. You, specifically. I'm perfectly happy to engage with gwharton as he's been relatively informed and I understand his angle.
To the best of my ability (which will probably falter eventually) this post is the last time I'm going to acknowledge your existence on this or any other forum. You are toxic. Find something better to do with your life.
Therefore I do not exist to you and therefore you are bound to that for the rest of eternity. This also means, that you are not to report anything I say or do to any authority. This also means you can not be licensed because you can not fulfill your legal obligation if I were to not obey the architectural licensing law because of that. I will have to inform Oregon Board of Architect Examiners that you will not have the ability to fully fulfill that obligation. Which compromises your status in terms of moral character.
Is that what you want to do. I would also have to report this to NCARB and ALL of the licensing boards in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world.
I think you want to rethink that statement a little bit.
Don't contractually bind yourself this way in writing.
There is something seriously wrong with you, Rick.
Jun 15, 16 4:02 pm ·
·
By definition, a forum broadly means any public medium not just the internet. This basically means the country and the world (except maybe North Korea).
As a practical matter, there ARE a couple of policies we know from recent experience have a very strong positive impact on reducing violent crime:
1) Profiling
2) Harsh penalties for minor offenses (e.g. Broken Windows Policing)
These are uncomfortable realities, and implementing them consistently runs contrary to a lot of legal and cultural traditions in the USA. Putting them into broad practice wouldn't be as directly unconstitutional as abrogating the Second Amendment, but it would be close.
But we know they work. In fact, we know they work a lot better than gun control does.
So if gun control is on the table, these should be too. In fact, they should be at the front of the list of things we should be considering. Are you willing to go there? If not, why not?
1. We need to enforce current gun laws. Incarceration is our friend.
2. We need a minimum federal gun law which no state may reduce or make less safe or more restrictive. It really should be the same everywhere you go.
3. Even though we have the 2nd amendment, does not mean that everybody should own a gun, they shouldn't. It should be restrictive to some level. See #2. Background check and ID card required, new background check every five years.
4. People should be required to take gun safety courses prior to each gun purchase.
5. Guns should be removed from an owner upon a violation of the gun laws due to criminal actions or even if someone finds them self on certain medications. I would even go so far as to require random drug testing.
6. Conceal carry is crazy. Most people have no need to carry a gun. Provide an actual need each year, case by case.
7. Owning more than X number of guns means you are a collector and you should be on a list of some sort. Because if you are not a collector and are stockpiling weapons, the police should know who and where you are.
8. 50,000 rounds of ammo stockpiled in your basement is not something most gun owners need, so why?
9. Minimum waiting period. Who cares if you have to wait 30 days? The only one who cares is the guy who is in a rush to kill someone. Wait them out.
10. No person to person transactions. All through registered gun shops who will register the new owner to the gun.
Lol... Non while you were struggling through college I was dodging enemy fire from those who I remind you that did fly planes into buildings, who slaughter people in California and recently in Florida. As far as I see it, you are a weak part of today's society who rather drink expensive coffee off the backs of 3rd world people. Then bitch about guns that protected you from things you couldn't fathom. You've never looked into the eyes of a dying person and felt helpless? You've never had to scrape out parts of your buddy so you go outside the wire. When your balls finally drop better hope it isn't too late my friend.
only skimmed this thread, heard all the arguments before, lots of people are all excited because this particular nut job decided to use a scary looking gun, but how different would the conversations would be if he used a pressure cooker?
What i'm getting at is that this is a very reactionary conversation. if gun control laws were really worth anything the murder rate would have skyrocketed since the assault weapon ban expired and cities that virtually ban handguns would be the safest places to live.
These mass killings by mentally ill or otherwise perverted people are a tragedy, but i don't think banning one particular weapon will make much of a difference either way.
I don't actually care that you served JRG, none of that justifies your or anyone else's right to own whatever murderous toys you want. You're stance is pathetic and I do blame people like you for the deaths caused by the gun violence.
On the Fence, you forgot to add a crazy-long list of prohibited guns which should not be limited to "assault" types but include most hand guns as well.
we have a volunteer army...for now. most wars are a result of america wanting to start one. we trained the taliban to fight soviets, now they fight us.
we as a society collectively get what we deserve for the most part. the fact that trump and hillary are the two next potential leaders of the us...what does that say about us? not so great.
Non seq, you need to learn to bend a little bit. America has this problem right now that you are either on one side or the other. With us or against us. Well, nothing gets done with this strategy. You may not like guns, but that doesn't mean nobody should have them. Currently I will agree that too many people do have them, even legally. The rules are too lenient in some places and allows easy access by people we shouldn't allow to buy squirt guns.
Fence, I'm more than reasonable. I just will not budge on my stance on the 2nd' ridiculous outdate'ness and people's ability to purchase anything other than normal firearms for hunting. Your list above is a fine list of talking points.
I never said I was better than Non! Pointing out if there is anyone in this discussion to have a valid reason to ban guns, it would be me and others who have been shot at. Then again I am better than him at living in chaos and at home! In a sense I am better at life! Lol
Perhaps. But no-where as loony as you pro gun wankers.
Jun 15, 16 5:29 pm ·
·
The problem is when you adopt these, these can be changed on a dime on political basis. Gun control should not be subject to party politics. This is why the forefathers of this country has made it illegal to adopt laws that abridges the Bill of Rights. There is no legal option to adopt the laws. Those laws are illegal to adopt or enforce.
Federal laws are adopted by politicians. What is the politicians decide based on their party political agendas that even having one bullet is too many.
There is no protection and immunity to political influence in the U.S. Code. This is why gun control laws that controls the number of guns and ammo a person may own are largely deemed unconstitutional.
What can be regulated is how much ammo and gun powder and the likes to a standard of facility safety. For example, how many ammo and gun powder and certain class of weapons requires specialized storage requirements that needs to be meet and perform according to performance based codes for safety of other properties and also for the access security management.
This would be something we can cover in building codes. We can require gun safety training. I can support that as a continuing education prior to purchasing a weapon for the first time and automatic registering of firearms. For public safety, police and law enforcement would know weapon ownership. It maybe something where we may have to limit the sales and transaction of sales of guns through certified firearm sales facilities. This would require a staffed notary for transaction of sales when there is a person selling a gun directly to another person as an option provide parties undergoes background checks which should be implement so it is instant with internet access 24/7 at all times.
Lets say you want to sell a gun to your cousin. You go to the sales facility which will charge only a minimum charge on top of the price for the notary who is jointly certified for gun sales to do the background check on persons identification. If a flag says the person may not own or possess a gun due to a felony with a fire arm under an court order, then the fire arm sales facility may terminate sale transaction. If cousin has such a restriction then the sales transaction is aborted. The sales facility notary and sales transaction person would serve with legal recognition like a notary is for sales transaction.
Buyer would have to pay base sales price + transaction fee (maybe its $50 or $100 for the sales transaction time). This would be a little different than a typical sales commission process which might be more. A regular sales commission would be a percentage of the sales and mark up from a consignment sale but that is because they have to market it to sell it to someone while the prior is a situation where you have a buyer lined up to pay for it but just need a transaction record with legal status and registration of sales transaction and change of ownership records.
The volume of ammo and gun powder can be something that requires special facility requirements and annual inspections from police and fire department in homes and at least bi-annual or quarterly inspections of special facilities for safety standards if property has to have special storage facilities. This is where storage of ammo, gun powder and other stuff on residential property may be developed to trigger special inspections requirements and special requirements for storage beyond standard storage requirements of fire arms and gun powder.
Storage doesn't necessarily have to be located on the same site as the home. This can also open up a market for rented storage facilities for that type of storage. What is important is not restricting or excessively penalizing those who may have some large scale ownership of guns and ammos who have not done anything wrong or harmed anyone because of the actions of a few lunatics.
These regulations maybe appropriate when considering appropriate revamping of existing homes and construction of new homes that considers storage of ammo, gun powders and other explosive materials and design assurance.
We need to improve background checking which should be able to be analyzed within 5 minutes including global inter-database linking of information in real time. In this technology age, 30 days is way too long.
All of this can be achieved while respecting Constitutional rights and provide some degree of safety. However, this doesn't solve a prevent a nut job from going out killing a bunch of people. A lot of those people who does this has no criminal history with a gun.
How do you deal with people like that? We need to actually address the issues and fueling these kinds of crimes. We just don't have a society with morals or a substantial lack of morals. They don't have good role models in their lives. We have nothing by criminals, corruptions and so forth. Their moral compass is all f---ed up. What are we as a society going to do to address that problem?
It's so easy to blame an inanimate object instead of manning up and accepting responsibility for this. All of us owes responsibility to all of the acts of mass killing in these recent times. You, me, Timmy, Donald, news media reporters, George, Barack, etc. the list goes on. Is it the gun, the problem? No. It's the people. We made this person in Orlando. We made these people. We made them. We need to accept that responsibility and learn to listen and understand why they did it so we can get at the heart of the issues that drove them to these horrible acts.
jrg: "...if there is anyone in this discussion to have a valid reason to ban guns, it would be me and others who have been shot at..."
yeah, isn't that the point, people whose families have been ripped apart, are saying that, do have a valid reason, and yet, and yet, and yet.....
look, i can appreciate your service, as an army brat, whose father was in Vietnam, and lived to tell, i can appreciate that, but that was then, and America, as you well know is short on history, your place in history; what you got for me today is our mantra.
Jun 15, 16 6:15 pm ·
·
N_S,
Fence, I'm more than reasonable. I just will not budge on my stance on the 2nd' ridiculous outdate'ness and people's ability to purchase anything other than normal firearms for hunting. Your list above is a fine list of talking points.
You are an idiot. You have no clue to the legal precedence that will create on the rest of our Constitutional rights because they will cease to be specially protected rights and be turned to ordinary privileges that can be given or taken away or altered by the whim of political party politics.
Taking away guns and mass killers will switch over to home brewed explosives made from easily available ingredients. Some combination of these ingredients have very massive explosive reaction that can yield massive kill rate and easily implemented.
Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Mass Shootings would just transform to mass killing through bombs because that is easily implemented. That's scary stuff.
I just blame the people behind the barrel but some do not understand that. I probably came off rude with Non but grouping every person who owns a gun is like saying every white person is racist. Or every Muslim is radical.
Rick... just FYI, the building codes do address the volumes you can store of hazardous materials. It just seldom is checked for compliance and heavily relies (at least on the commercial side of things) for them to submit a hazardous substance report sheet to the fire department annually. I don't think the residential is ever checked.. and theoretically every house probably fails. The volume of gas in your car probably exceeds the volumes allowed.
Basically; unenforceable solutions don't work. Costly inspections won't work either. Those types of things really only come into play AFTER a event happens (based on my insurance investigation days and liability/coverage issues). Hence building code changes that are more 'what the owner furnishes the house with' isn't really something we can deal with. Unless it's fixed as part of construction... you are SOL from a building code standpoint.
Designing buildings to protect the public from mass shootings
Getting rid of guns doesn't solve or stop mass killings and other like senseless killing.
But it sure raises the effort threshold considerably. Isn't that a worthy goal?
"need for two-sided liability of some sort"
I don't see this at all, and you don't provide any support for the position. On what possible basis, tort or contractual, would such a liability be said to exist? It doesn't make sense.
What it DOES sound like is a dishonest workaround to try and target gun manufacturers and sellers instead of bad actors.
tduds,
I'm curious - what magical wand are you going to wave that makes 310 million firearms suddenly disappear from North America? How exactly do you think that's going to work in reality?
tduds,
But it sure raises the effort threshold considerably. Isn't that a worthy goal?
Not really.
I'm deadly serious when I say that.
gwharton: Honestly, I have no idea. But just because I don't know doesn't mean we can't - as a nation - have a productive conversation about it. That's what frustrates me most about this stupid debate: everytime it comes up the response is always something along the lines of "We can't magically fix everything, so it's useless to try anything."
I've been skimming this thread and I gotta say, I find both sides to be annoyingly righteous and talking past each other with "All or Nothing" scenarios that do nothing but distract from the fact that there really is a problem here and it needs to be addressed.
"culture is to blame" Fixed that for you Non... Basically, you'll have f*cktards statistically no matter what we're talking; drugs, cars, blow up dolls, etc. that will use it in a way society can not tolerate. I'll be honest here... I was all for stricter gun controls, but the f*cktard "ban 'em all" shouting has pushed me to the other side. I do believe there is less and less middleground the longer this conversation continues as hard lines get drawn.
Easiest way I can think of is to expand current restrictions.
So, you expand the ammo laws to include fairly common rounds down to non-lethal stopping rounds. A proper license (which includes a thorough background check, and a current hunting license can purchase proper lethal rounds). Example is a fragable round like the glazer; think buckshot in a polymer resin that breaks apart when it hits something; big shallow wounds and a large energy transfer for stopping power. Might skirt the 2nd amendment.
You expand the "automatic weapon" clauses to define a fire rate limit before it becomes a ?Class 3? weapon. I don't know what is reasonable, but 1 per second might be too slow to be adequate in home defense. It's more for the spray and pray sorts of shootings.
And you fund and allow studies to happen which also requires some database establishment; What local regulations work, what doesn't, where the problems are, etc.
It won't stop the one on one killings, but might put a dent in the mass shootings.
Rick: I have no desire to further discuss this or anything else with you.
I'm curious - what magical wand are you going to wave that makes 310 million firearms suddenly disappear from North America? How exactly do you think that's going to work in reality?
You won't unless you start confiscating (which will never happen). Yet, you also don't want to add more into circulation; So that's why you increase regulations. It's also why I think you go after the ammo. Ammo has a shelf life and stockpiles get slowly used up. It doesn't solve the immediate problem... nothing will. You play the long game so in a decade you might see less of this..
Gwharton, I think you are right. I understand the free will argument that you obviously cannot control what someone else does with their free will. A person could be totally law abiding then snap and do something crazy, why should the seller be held responsible for that?
I do however think that gun manufactures and sellers have some responsibility. The responsibility is inherent in the product they are selling. It is a potentially dangerous device. A tool that helps incentivize that responsibility is needed to balance the incentive to make as much money as possible by selling as many guns as possible.
There is definitely a problem with gun violence in the United States. There is absolutely no question about that and I have never once denied it or tried to dodge it. In fact, there is a serious problem with violence per se, not just violence involving guns. Violent crime has been on the decline for nearly 20 years now, which is good, but it started from a high level and still remains high despite the decline.
The problem comes from using guns as a talisman for discussing the violence, who's perpetrating it, and why. It's pure magical thinking and not even a little bit productive. All heat, no light.
If you're serious about really addressing violence in America, I commend you. But as part of really doing that, NOTHING is off the table. Not guns. Not government policies. Not law enforcement priorities. And not demographics or culture either.
There are also certain realities that need to be acknowledged. The fact that banning guns in the USA is essentially impossible even if we tossed the Constitution and gave Obama carte blanche to order the Army to go out and collect them all tomorrow. Just plain-old impossible.
If it's just going to be about the symbolism of banning AR15s because they look all black and scary and movie villains use them, then there's nothing to discuss. At that point, it's just about social signalling to partisan biases.
Mass shootings, especially ones perpetrated by suburban teenagers would likely be thwarted as they probably lack the will or criminal connections to purchase illegal guns. I don't see it stopping general gun crimes perpetrated by criminals. The big uncertain is whether it will cause a black market to develop. I'd say it probably would. Could this make the problem worse? Maybe..
I couldn't agree more:
The problem comes from using guns as a talisman for discussing the violence, who's perpetrating it, and why. It's pure magical thinking and not even a little bit productive. All heat, no light.
But I think we as existing gun owners as well as the manufactures, and sellers are complicit in creating that culture of violence whether we like it or not. And as a result of benefiting from that culture have a responsibility to contribute towards curbing its negative effects
The black market already exists, so there's no question about that.
Mass shootings are an infinitessimally small number of gun crimes in the United States. And of mass shootings, those perpetrated by whacked-out teenagers are an even tinier fraction. They're sensational, horrific, and get lots of news coverage, but numerically are almost irrelevant in a nation of 320-something million people.
How about you cease production and sale of everything other than hunting rifles. Register all guns and grand-father existing law-abiding gun nuts but restrict the carry, transportation and use of such murderous tools to appropriate gun ranges. Cease all private sales unless under careful government oversight and limit maximums for ammunition hoarding (zero would be a great number to start at) and anyone caught outside of the rules has his/her privileges revoked for life and any crime committed with a firearm (fired or not) results in the immediate castration (or female equivalent) of the fucktard in front of their children.
tduds,
You are not interested in discussing things with people who don't agree.
i'm not a sheep, a wolf, or a dog. but i'm with Tduds. I'm also the best one!
also, law abiding people fighting illegal gun violence with more gun violence does nothing to address the problem of why there is illegal gun violence to begin with.
Rick: No. You, specifically. I'm perfectly happy to engage with gwharton as he's been relatively informed and I understand his angle.
To the best of my ability (which will probably falter eventually) this post is the last time I'm going to acknowledge your existence on this or any other forum. You are toxic. Find something better to do with your life.
My interpretation of the last post:
let's hear more about this mountain lion stalking. sounds interesting.
Rick: No. You, specifically. I'm perfectly happy to engage with gwharton as he's been relatively informed and I understand his angle.
To the best of my ability (which will probably falter eventually) this post is the last time I'm going to acknowledge your existence on this or any other forum. You are toxic. Find something better to do with your life.
Therefore I do not exist to you and therefore you are bound to that for the rest of eternity. This also means, that you are not to report anything I say or do to any authority. This also means you can not be licensed because you can not fulfill your legal obligation if I were to not obey the architectural licensing law because of that. I will have to inform Oregon Board of Architect Examiners that you will not have the ability to fully fulfill that obligation. Which compromises your status in terms of moral character.
Is that what you want to do. I would also have to report this to NCARB and ALL of the licensing boards in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world.
I think you want to rethink that statement a little bit.
Don't contractually bind yourself this way in writing.
There is something seriously wrong with you, Rick.
By definition, a forum broadly means any public medium not just the internet. This basically means the country and the world (except maybe North Korea).
Josh... did Sir Ricardo Balkanistof just bring architecture licensing laws to a gun fight?
Two recent posts I endorse 100%:
"There is something seriously wrong with you, Rick."
"let's hear more about this mountain lion stalking. sounds interesting."
Well done, NS. Well done.
As a practical matter, there ARE a couple of policies we know from recent experience have a very strong positive impact on reducing violent crime:
1) Profiling
2) Harsh penalties for minor offenses (e.g. Broken Windows Policing)
These are uncomfortable realities, and implementing them consistently runs contrary to a lot of legal and cultural traditions in the USA. Putting them into broad practice wouldn't be as directly unconstitutional as abrogating the Second Amendment, but it would be close.
But we know they work. In fact, we know they work a lot better than gun control does.
So if gun control is on the table, these should be too. In fact, they should be at the front of the list of things we should be considering. Are you willing to go there? If not, why not?
I will agree to or that:
1. We need to enforce current gun laws. Incarceration is our friend.
2. We need a minimum federal gun law which no state may reduce or make less safe or more restrictive. It really should be the same everywhere you go.
3. Even though we have the 2nd amendment, does not mean that everybody should own a gun, they shouldn't. It should be restrictive to some level. See #2. Background check and ID card required, new background check every five years.
4. People should be required to take gun safety courses prior to each gun purchase.
5. Guns should be removed from an owner upon a violation of the gun laws due to criminal actions or even if someone finds them self on certain medications. I would even go so far as to require random drug testing.
6. Conceal carry is crazy. Most people have no need to carry a gun. Provide an actual need each year, case by case.
7. Owning more than X number of guns means you are a collector and you should be on a list of some sort. Because if you are not a collector and are stockpiling weapons, the police should know who and where you are.
8. 50,000 rounds of ammo stockpiled in your basement is not something most gun owners need, so why?
9. Minimum waiting period. Who cares if you have to wait 30 days? The only one who cares is the guy who is in a rush to kill someone. Wait them out.
10. No person to person transactions. All through registered gun shops who will register the new owner to the gun.
only skimmed this thread, heard all the arguments before, lots of people are all excited because this particular nut job decided to use a scary looking gun, but how different would the conversations would be if he used a pressure cooker?
What i'm getting at is that this is a very reactionary conversation. if gun control laws were really worth anything the murder rate would have skyrocketed since the assault weapon ban expired and cities that virtually ban handguns would be the safest places to live.
These mass killings by mentally ill or otherwise perverted people are a tragedy, but i don't think banning one particular weapon will make much of a difference either way.
I don't actually care that you served JRG, none of that justifies your or anyone else's right to own whatever murderous toys you want. You're stance is pathetic and I do blame people like you for the deaths caused by the gun violence.
On the Fence, you forgot to add a crazy-long list of prohibited guns which should not be limited to "assault" types but include most hand guns as well.
we have a volunteer army...for now. most wars are a result of america wanting to start one. we trained the taliban to fight soviets, now they fight us.
we as a society collectively get what we deserve for the most part. the fact that trump and hillary are the two next potential leaders of the us...what does that say about us? not so great.
I HAVE DONE THINGS THAT I THINK MAKE ME A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?
JRG, if you had a point, you just blew it with that rant.
jrg4597,
Non Seq is someone you never have to worry about having any effect on gun laws. Completely unreasonable. Castration? Come on Non?
Nothing I've said is unreasonable On The Fence.
Non seq, you need to learn to bend a little bit. America has this problem right now that you are either on one side or the other. With us or against us. Well, nothing gets done with this strategy. You may not like guns, but that doesn't mean nobody should have them. Currently I will agree that too many people do have them, even legally. The rules are too lenient in some places and allows easy access by people we shouldn't allow to buy squirt guns.
Fence, I'm more than reasonable. I just will not budge on my stance on the 2nd' ridiculous outdate'ness and people's ability to purchase anything other than normal firearms for hunting. Your list above is a fine list of talking points.
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
NonSeq is a loon who can be safely ignored: sort of a Bizarro-Balkins. Don't bother engaging him.
The problem is when you adopt these, these can be changed on a dime on political basis. Gun control should not be subject to party politics. This is why the forefathers of this country has made it illegal to adopt laws that abridges the Bill of Rights. There is no legal option to adopt the laws. Those laws are illegal to adopt or enforce.
Federal laws are adopted by politicians. What is the politicians decide based on their party political agendas that even having one bullet is too many.
There is no protection and immunity to political influence in the U.S. Code. This is why gun control laws that controls the number of guns and ammo a person may own are largely deemed unconstitutional.
What can be regulated is how much ammo and gun powder and the likes to a standard of facility safety. For example, how many ammo and gun powder and certain class of weapons requires specialized storage requirements that needs to be meet and perform according to performance based codes for safety of other properties and also for the access security management.
This would be something we can cover in building codes. We can require gun safety training. I can support that as a continuing education prior to purchasing a weapon for the first time and automatic registering of firearms. For public safety, police and law enforcement would know weapon ownership. It maybe something where we may have to limit the sales and transaction of sales of guns through certified firearm sales facilities. This would require a staffed notary for transaction of sales when there is a person selling a gun directly to another person as an option provide parties undergoes background checks which should be implement so it is instant with internet access 24/7 at all times.
Lets say you want to sell a gun to your cousin. You go to the sales facility which will charge only a minimum charge on top of the price for the notary who is jointly certified for gun sales to do the background check on persons identification. If a flag says the person may not own or possess a gun due to a felony with a fire arm under an court order, then the fire arm sales facility may terminate sale transaction. If cousin has such a restriction then the sales transaction is aborted. The sales facility notary and sales transaction person would serve with legal recognition like a notary is for sales transaction.
Buyer would have to pay base sales price + transaction fee (maybe its $50 or $100 for the sales transaction time). This would be a little different than a typical sales commission process which might be more. A regular sales commission would be a percentage of the sales and mark up from a consignment sale but that is because they have to market it to sell it to someone while the prior is a situation where you have a buyer lined up to pay for it but just need a transaction record with legal status and registration of sales transaction and change of ownership records.
The volume of ammo and gun powder can be something that requires special facility requirements and annual inspections from police and fire department in homes and at least bi-annual or quarterly inspections of special facilities for safety standards if property has to have special storage facilities. This is where storage of ammo, gun powder and other stuff on residential property may be developed to trigger special inspections requirements and special requirements for storage beyond standard storage requirements of fire arms and gun powder.
Storage doesn't necessarily have to be located on the same site as the home. This can also open up a market for rented storage facilities for that type of storage. What is important is not restricting or excessively penalizing those who may have some large scale ownership of guns and ammos who have not done anything wrong or harmed anyone because of the actions of a few lunatics.
These regulations maybe appropriate when considering appropriate revamping of existing homes and construction of new homes that considers storage of ammo, gun powders and other explosive materials and design assurance.
We need to improve background checking which should be able to be analyzed within 5 minutes including global inter-database linking of information in real time. In this technology age, 30 days is way too long.
All of this can be achieved while respecting Constitutional rights and provide some degree of safety. However, this doesn't solve a prevent a nut job from going out killing a bunch of people. A lot of those people who does this has no criminal history with a gun.
How do you deal with people like that? We need to actually address the issues and fueling these kinds of crimes. We just don't have a society with morals or a substantial lack of morals. They don't have good role models in their lives. We have nothing by criminals, corruptions and so forth. Their moral compass is all f---ed up. What are we as a society going to do to address that problem?
It's so easy to blame an inanimate object instead of manning up and accepting responsibility for this. All of us owes responsibility to all of the acts of mass killing in these recent times. You, me, Timmy, Donald, news media reporters, George, Barack, etc. the list goes on. Is it the gun, the problem? No. It's the people. We made this person in Orlando. We made these people. We made them. We need to accept that responsibility and learn to listen and understand why they did it so we can get at the heart of the issues that drove them to these horrible acts.
^ I surrender. I can't even. This is not good for me. Why did I even. ugh my brain
Rikki, go away, Archinect is my safe space, your verbal AR-N0Nsense is exploding my brain parts.
jrg: "...if there is anyone in this discussion to have a valid reason to ban guns, it would be me and others who have been shot at..."
yeah, isn't that the point, people whose families have been ripped apart, are saying that, do have a valid reason, and yet, and yet, and yet.....
look, i can appreciate your service, as an army brat, whose father was in Vietnam, and lived to tell, i can appreciate that, but that was then, and America, as you well know is short on history, your place in history; what you got for me today is our mantra.
N_S,
Fence, I'm more than reasonable. I just will not budge on my stance on the 2nd' ridiculous outdate'ness and people's ability to purchase anything other than normal firearms for hunting. Your list above is a fine list of talking points.
You are an idiot. You have no clue to the legal precedence that will create on the rest of our Constitutional rights because they will cease to be specially protected rights and be turned to ordinary privileges that can be given or taken away or altered by the whim of political party politics.
Taking away guns and mass killers will switch over to home brewed explosives made from easily available ingredients. Some combination of these ingredients have very massive explosive reaction that can yield massive kill rate and easily implemented.
Remember the Oklahoma City Bombing? Mass Shootings would just transform to mass killing through bombs because that is easily implemented. That's scary stuff.
jrg,
thank you.
Rick... just FYI, the building codes do address the volumes you can store of hazardous materials. It just seldom is checked for compliance and heavily relies (at least on the commercial side of things) for them to submit a hazardous substance report sheet to the fire department annually. I don't think the residential is ever checked.. and theoretically every house probably fails. The volume of gas in your car probably exceeds the volumes allowed.
Basically; unenforceable solutions don't work. Costly inspections won't work either. Those types of things really only come into play AFTER a event happens (based on my insurance investigation days and liability/coverage issues). Hence building code changes that are more 'what the owner furnishes the house with' isn't really something we can deal with. Unless it's fixed as part of construction... you are SOL from a building code standpoint.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.