Mass shooting in San Bernandino

[Swordfish]

I don't see how requiring people to store guns safely is an infringement on gun rights.

The supreme court has already ruled on this.  So if you don't understand, perhaps you should google the decision.

How is this a slippery slope? We do this regularly with a whole lot of regulated systems. And yes, not everyone is perfect - but it's certainly better than zero regulation. 

We do not live in a society with zero regulation. There are thousands of gun regulations on the books.

[Kalbear]

 

We do not live in a society with zero regulation. There are thousands of gun regulations on the books.

Okay, then it makes even less sense to oppose things like mandatory licensing and safety courses. 

I realize that this is a nonstarter as far as actual constitutionality goes, but step back a second and answer the question: what is the slippery slope Free Northman Rebound is having issue with wrt licensing and training? Or another way - what is the problem with restricting morons who don't handle guns properly from having guns?

[Swordfish]

Okay, then it makes even less sense to oppose things like mandatory licensing and safety courses. 

 

huh?  how so?

For the record, i support mandatory safety training.

 

I realize that this is a nonstarter as far as actual constitutionality goes, but step back a second and answer the question: what is the slippery slope Free Northman Rebound is having issue with wrt licensing and training? 

pretty simple, really:

1 - Mass shooting.

2- Implementation of licensing

3 - Another mass shooting.

Now ask yourself, what happens next? Do gun regulation supporters simply throw up their hands and say 'Well, we did all we could.'  or is it more likely that they push for additional restrictions?

Because licensing does nothing to prevent the situation that just occurred in San Bernadino, and California already has pretty strict gun control laws. 

 

 

Or another way - what is the problem with restricting morons who don't handle guns properly from having guns?

Identifying the morons. 

[Kalbear]

Because licensing does nothing to prevent the situation that just occurred in San Bernadino, and California already has pretty strict gun control laws. 

Who said it did? FNR mentioned the big problem is that anyone who doesn't carry their weapon correctly is a moron - but he has a problem with enacting anything else because it is a slippery slope. 

I am concerned about mass shootings, but I'm a lot more concerned with stopping 2000 deaths of kids a year due to poor firearm safety. 

Identifying the morons.

If identifying the morons is basically those who fail gun safety classes, is that an issue? If so, what is the issue? 

[Swordfish]

Who said it did? FNR mentioned the big problem is that anyone who doesn't carry their weapon correctly is a moron - but he has a problem with enacting anything else because it is a slippery slope. 

You asked me to answer the slippery slope question.  I did that.  I'm not sure what else there is to really say about it.  I'm not going to speak for FNR.

 

 

I am concerned about mass shootings, but I'm a lot more concerned with stopping 2000 deaths of kids a year due to poor firearm safety. 

If identifying the morons is basically those who fail gun safety classes, is that an issue? If so, what is the issue? 

 That isn't what you initially asked.  Passing a gun safety course does not guarantee that someone is going to handle guns correctly, just that they should understand how to.  But I'd actually advocate gun safety training for everyone, not just as a requirement for ownership, so it's apples to oranges i think anyway.

[TrackerNeil]

it's also very different than the assessment i responded to, which was that guns were literally killing us all.  

OK, Swordfish, I will modify my statement: Guns are figuratively killing us all. Now maybe you can get some sleep tonight.

[Fragile Bird]

Did they bring all those rounds of ammunition home in grocery bags, since none of the neighbors noticed anything?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

??

They brought them home in cardboard boxes with bullets in them.  It's not like they come in bright orange and red boxes marked BULLETS!!!!!

 

[TerraPrime]

And even if they did, there's no law against stock-piling ammunition. In the shooting case in Oregon, neighbors did report a man walking around suspiciously with an open carry firearm, and the police dispatch very politely, and correctly, informed them that there's nothing for the police to do because it's perfectly legal to carry fire arms.

[Fragile Bird]

6,400 rounds is a hell of a lot of little boxes of bullets.

What do I know, I can't even remotely imagine having that much ammo in the basement.

ETA:  Just heard on the news that on the Thanksgiving weekend a record was set in the USA for attempted purchases of guns, with 185,000 requests for background checks being made on Black Friday.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Did they bring all those rounds of ammunition home in grocery bags, since none of the neighbors noticed anything?

The neigbours did find it very suspicious, but did not report it because they did not want to be accused of racial profiling. 

I'm struggling to copy the link for some reason, but just google the story. It was first reported on townhall.com and now there is a more detailed deport on dailymail.co.uk as well.

The Daily Mail article summary reads:

Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik were 'receiving packages' and 'working at strange hours in their garage' according to their neighbors.

But neighbors feared reporting them in case it was merely racial profiling.

It has since emerged Farook and Malik had 12 pipe bombs in the house

The couple shot 65-70 rounds at Inland Regional Center on Wednesday.

They had 12 pipe bombs, tools to assemble bombs, 2,000 9mm rounds, and over 2,500 223 rounds stored at their suburban home, according to the FBI

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The neigbours did find it very suspicious, but did not report it because they did not want to be accused of racial profiling. 

I'm struggling to copy the link for some reason, but just google the story. It was first reported on townhall.com and now there is a more detailed deport on dailymail.co.uk as well.

 

 

Oh ffs, what the fuck would the cops do about it if you did report it? Fucking Bullshit. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Oh ffs, what the fuck would the cops do about it if you did report it? Fucking Bullshit. 

Fragile Bird asked the question. How did no one notice the ammo hoard buildup and IED factory in the garage?  And the answer was provided: People did in fact notice.

[TerraPrime]

It is the DailyMail.

[Altherion]

I realize that this is a nonstarter as far as actual constitutionality goes, but step back a second and answer the question: what is the slippery slope Free Northman Rebound is having issue with wrt licensing and training? Or another way - what is the problem with restricting morons who don't handle guns properly from having guns?

I don't know what Free Northman's objection is, but the usual argument about the slippery slope is that after you make the restrictions in question and they fail to stop the next mass shooting (and they almost certainly will), you will move on something like Australia's mandatory buyback program. There are already people who are advocating for this. For example:

Congress's decision not to pass background checks is not what's keeping the US from European gun violence levels. The expiration of the assault weapons ban is not behind the gap. What's behind the gap, plenty of research indicates, is that Americans have more guns. The statistics are mind-blowing: America has 4.4 percent of the world's population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns.

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

...

So could it happen in the US? The legal scholars I talked to suggested that an Australia-style program would probably pass muster. If we went further than Australia and also banned handguns, that might cause problems; the Supreme Court struck down Washington, DC's handgun ban in 2008. But Australia's actual system is probably constitutional.

Keep in mind that the Constitution is a paper shield. It's made of sturdier paper than most such shields, but if the President and a majority of both Congress and the Supreme Court decided to interpret it in a way that eliminates or creates a right, that right will be eliminated or created. For example, most people would think that the Fourth Amendment prevents the police from seizing your property without convicting you of a crime... and they would be wrong. Thanks to civil asset forfeiture, police can take and sell your stuff without so much as even accusing you of a crime and it is perfectly legal because the property rather than the owner is charged with the crime (yes, I'm serious). The rights in the Constitution are only real if people defend them.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The slippery slope idea is loosely based on the following reasoning:

How would you identify and enforce the safe storage of firearms? Would you need to do a safe inspection in the home of every gun owner in America? I presume that would be on record then, thus constituting some type of registry of all gun owners.

What about when he buys another gun a few years later? Would you need to periodically visit every gun owner's home and see if he still meets the necessary safe storage requirements? But that is easy to circumvent, if the guy knows you are coming because he just applied for a new gun. He simply puts all his guns in the safe until the application process is over.

So to overcome that, do you then need to introduce random, unannounced inspections of gun owners' homes?

And once those regulations fail to reduce shootings, do you then ramp it up a tad, and then another tad a few years later, until you end up with an Australia type system?

Let's take cars as an example. I would suspect that reckless gun ownership is probably tied to reckless personality traits in general, and that it would correlate significantly with reckless driving. And yet, reckless driving occurs all over the USA. And offenders are only caught and prosecuted after they have actually committed a reckless act. Pretty much how it is with gun safety violations. If you negligently allowed a minor to get hold of your gun, you will already be prosecuted. With no need to infringe on rights by way of house inspections prior to purchasing a gun etc.

And even if you DO implement all of the above regulations, you still don't know what the guy is going to do with his gun when the cops aren't around. Maybe leave it on the kitchen counter while boozing it up in the living room, for his 10 year old to pick up and play with?

You can't control that. No matter what regulations you have in place.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Everyone,

Y'all are aware that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, right?

Altherion,

I and many others here have objected   to "civil forefiture" as it is done in many parts of the US.  At a minimum there should be a criminal conviction before assets should be seized and allowing police to keep such assets and use them to fund their operations  creates an incentive for abuse of Civil Forefiture.

[TrackerNeil]

Everyone,

Y'all are aware that "Slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, right?

I think the slippery-slope argument holds weight only when one can demonstrate that the introduction of A leads to B. For example, one could credibly argue that a policy that recognizes the legal personhood of fetuses naturally leads to laws restricting abortion. However, it's less credible to argue that a law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms leads to more crime or government tyranny, or something.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

It's a fallacy because it presumes A will lead to B with little or no explanation at to why A makes B inevitable.

[Larry of the Lawn]

A morning redness in the East:

 

In light of the San Bernandino shooting, in Ulster County, NY, about forty minutes from me, the sheriff is encouraging everyone with a licensed handgun to carry at all times.  This isn't going to end badly.  How long before some good Samaritan draws down on a plainclothes cop or another do-gooder?