Jump to content

Oh by the way, someone shot and killed an 8 year old (of course it's USA)


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TP,

Regulations regarding securing firearms in the home and criminal sanction for failing to abide by those regulations will serve to limit access by children and allow private ownership of firearms to continue.

They are non-starters for legislations, far as I can tell. It will be too intrusive by today's standard of regulation. 

 

For one, how are you going to enforce it to a degree that it's useful without some sort of check and monitoring? If there were no checking and monitoring, then it's just a law without teeth and wouldn't do what it needs to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Also, reducing access to firearms is indeed the only way to solving some of the other problems, like toddlers shooting people and themselves to death. Last year when I was keeping count there were about 260 of these cases where a toddler (4 or below) shot and killed someone. Any of the legislative measures we are can impose to make a dent in that statistic would be overly intrusive under our 2nd Amendment.

This is not the case. The Second Amendment does not prohibit laws that require guns to be stored in a place where children cannot get at them. In fact, quite a few states have such laws and not just the usual Democrat strongholds, but also places like Utah and Indiana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TP,

When someone is hurt or killed due to an unsecured firearm... the regulations will be enforceable.

Yes, but are the people less dead? No, I don't think so. These laws are effective in punishing careless owners, but do very little in preventing actual deaths from, you know, careless owners. The people who are letting these kids die from handguns are already the people who are failing at these hypothetical laws. Passing more of them laws seems unlikely to modify their behavior. 

 

 

Re: Altherion 

So you think if we manage to pass those storage laws we will see a significant drop in the number of toddler murders? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Yes, but are the people less dead? No, I don't think so. These laws are effective in punishing careless owners, but do very little in preventing actual deaths from, you know, careless owners. The people who are letting these kids die from handguns are already the people who are failing at these hypothetical laws. Passing more of them laws seems unlikely to modify their behavior. 

 

 

Re: Altherion 

So you think if we manage to pass those storage laws we will see a significant drop in the number of toddler murders? 

As careless owners are prosecuted for their carelessness it should prompt others to be more careful when they see consequences to carelessness.  Is it perfect, no.  But people could still be careless if the 4th amendment were set aside (something I would oppose vigorously) and random searches allowed to ensure proper firearm storage.  So, no system would prevent all deaths.  

I'm pointing out that applying criminal sanction for failure to properly store firearms should have impact even if that impact is not perfect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, TP, the mechanism is pretty clear: If you make people liable (preferably even prosecutable...) for unsafe storage of guns, sure the effect will not be immediate, but over a few years it should at the very least reduce the issue. When people hear that their child shooting another with their unsecured gun could mean either a multi-million dollar lawsuit or even significant time in jail, they'll hopefully start paying more attention to storing their guns safely. And if they don't, well at least there are some consequences for that, which is more than can be said right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Yeah, TP, the mechanism is pretty clear: If you make people liable (preferably even prosecutable...) for unsafe storage of guns, sure the effect will not be immediate, but over a few years it should at the very least reduce the issue. When people hear that their child shooting another with their unsecured gun could mean either a multi-million dollar lawsuit or even significant time in jail, they'll hopefully start paying more attention to storing their guns safely. And if they don't, well at least there are some consequences for that, which is more than can be said right now.

Because hearing about a child shooting another child is not an incentive at all?  The theory here is that the fear of a hypothetical fine is greater than the fear of having your kid shoot themselves or someone else?

it's possible i guess.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Because hearing about a child shooting another child is not an incentive at all?  The theory here is that the fear of a hypothetical fine is greater than the fear of having your kid shoot themselves or someone else?

it's possible i guess.....

What is an acceptable measure for you? You shoot down every proposal as being somehow ineffective or unconstitutional.

/And fuck a fine, if it's shown that you can't manage to secure your weapon properly, it should be taken away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What is an acceptable measure for you? You shoot down every proposal as being somehow ineffective or unconstitutional.

/And fuck a fine, if it's shown that you can't manage to secure your weapon properly, it should be taken away.

What other measures are there for gun regulations than effectiveness and constitutionality?  What are acceptable measures for you?

I'm not shooting it down (pun intended?).  It already exists in a handful of places, as has been pointed out.  I'm questioning whether it's effective.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

What other measures are there for gun regulations than effectiveness and constitutionality?  What are acceptable measures for you?

Right, so name some measure you'd find to be acceptable or effective. Everything mentioned by any poster here on the Gun Control side of things has been shot down by you. Your default position seems to be nothing can or should be done regarding this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Because hearing about a child shooting another child is not an incentive at all?  The theory here is that the fear of a hypothetical fine is greater than the fear of having your kid shoot themselves or someone else?

it's possible i guess.....

If the latter has no consequences for you personally, but the former has? Sure the incentive is greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Right, so name some measure you'd find to be acceptable or effective. Everything mentioned by any poster here on the Gun Control side of things has been shot down by you. Your default position seems to be nothing can or should be done regarding this issue.

So are we in agreement that effectiveness and constitutionality are the measures?

Let's start there, and then I'll answer your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

If the latter has no consequences for you personally, but the former has? Sure the incentive is greater.

The risk of having your kid shoot someone, or shoot themselves has no consequences for a person?  really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Swordfish: Apparently not enough of them to encourage responsible gun storage in every gun owner. 

Perhaps any single measure isn't effective on its own, but all of them combined are. In that case, complaining about the efficacy of any one measure is misguided. I mean, sure, a V8 engine on its own in insufficient in getting me some 200 miles away from here, but when combined with a transmission, axles, wheels and a chassis, things start looking differently. The main point, in my opinion, has to be a change in perspective amongst gun owners: guns absolutely need to stop being seen as tools for self-defense against other people. Defense against wild animals, hunting tool, even backup for police are all less problematic than "defending yourself against intruders" or "standing your ground" (aka killing black and brown people for scaring you with their dark skin)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm more concerned with the effectiveness bit, but sure, I think that's a fair starting point.

OK.

I'm fine with most of the existing laws on the books. I was fine with waiting period laws, when they existed.

I'm fine with mandatory training.

I'm fine with 'keep out of reach of children' type laws, provided they are not overly specific.  For example, I'm ok with a law that says 'if your kid gets ahold of a gun because you didn't store it properly, you can be held liable'.  i am not fine with a law that says 'You must have a trigger lock in place at all times when the gun is being stored'.  Which is I suspect what Scot is lobbying for here.

I would like to see us end the war on drugs, and meaningful repeal of the criminal justice system.  I know these things are not gun regulations specifically, but I don't think it's controversial to suggest that addressing these two issues would have a non trivial impact on gun violence.

Increased emphasis on mental health treatment.......

probably a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@Swordfish: Apparently not enough of them to encourage responsible gun storage in every gun owner. 

Perhaps any single measure isn't effective on its own, but all of them combined are. In that case, complaining about the efficacy of any one measure is misguided. I mean, sure, a V8 engine on its own in insufficient in getting me some 200 miles away from here, but when combined with a transmission, axles, wheels and a chassis, things start looking differently. The main point, in my opinion, has to be a change in perspective amongst gun owners: guns absolutely need to stop being seen as tools for self-defense against other people. Defense against wild animals, hunting tool, even backup for police are all less problematic than "defending yourself against intruders" or "standing your ground" (aka killing black and brown people for scaring you with their dark skin)

We have a fundamental disagreement here that no amount of discussion is going to reconcile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

So you think premeditated violence against your fellow human beings is a good or even acceptable thing? Good to know.

Ha.  Clearly that is the only possible way to interpret my response.

Thank you for validating my opinion on the possibility of engaging in any meaningful discourse with you over this issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...