Another mass shooting in America

fps

Kit
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
702
Location
London
What failed in this instance is the firearm owner's lack of properly securing his/her weapon. A simple trigger lock or gun safe/cabinet would of prevented them from being taken. Hell....mine are in a biometric safe beside my bed. Only myself & my woman can get into them unless someone clones our fingerprints. It's not the law that failed, its the home the weapons came from.

The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?
 

texshred777

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
61
Location
Austin, TX
The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?

Can you say civil rights clusterfuck?
 

YngwieJ

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
73
Reaction score
11
Location
Austin, TX
The law as it stands is clearly not enough then. Surely there need to be regular unadvertised inspections of houses to make sure owners are securing their weapons properly, and have all the weapons they say they do and haven't lent them to someone or sold some of them?
This would be protected from under the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The only way they could search the home is if the police could show probable cause that someone is violating safe-storage laws.

As far as I could find, the safe-storage laws in Connecticut are only applicable to those with a minor (under 16 years of age) in the home. Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
They could make it contractual with getting a license then no warrant would be necessary; similar to agreeing at your job to random drug testing. Even then there is a lot of money, paperwork, man hours and butt hurt to deal with if they went that route. It would still be infeasible.
 

Mordacain

Formerly 1-watt brigadier
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
424
Location
St. Louis, MO
This would be protected from under the Fourth Amendment.

The only way they could search the home is if the police could show probable cause that someone is violating safe-storage laws.

As far as I could find, the safe-storage laws in Connecticut are only applicable to those with a minor (under 16 years of age) in the home. Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.

Well, not that this would ever happen, but guns could easily be manufactured with small RFID tags that could be hard-coded to the owner's gunsafe that in turn could be tied into a massive Law-Enforcement database. Law enforcement could then know when you remove the gun from the safe and, by the same token, tell if you leave the gun out of the safe for extended periods. Of course you could setup exceptions for a handgun registered as a concealed carry weapon.

Seriously, not actually suggesting this, just spitting ideas out there. This all has to do with what people determine is an invasion of privacy. Me personally, I wouldn't care if Law Enforcement could track my guns' whereabouts. Any law-abiding citizen would only have occasion to remove their firearms in instance of defense of life and property, trips to the firing range (or competitions as the case were), when hunting, performing routine maintenance or when selling the weapon.

Honestly, I actually really like the idea of Law Enforcement being able to account for all legally purchased / registered weapons at a given time. Should make it easier to crack down on illicit firearms sale and possession and also allow for more punitive laws for illegally owning a firearm.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
Yeah, but the gun industry makes a lot of money indirectly through the black market. Someone at some point bought the gun legally to sell to someone else and will either buy another to replace it or buy another to sell. If it got stolen, same thing, they will replace it most likely. It is lucrative. Plus, you can't convince people their lives are in danger and they NEED guns to even survive if we actually solved the problem. If we got rid of illegal guns and got crime rates to drop so would their sales.

There is money to be made in the chaos and they don't want it fixed.

Similar to google 'fighting' for the internet's freedom. They are all using us as pawns to serve their best interest.

The RFID chip idea is quite interesting. It'd never happen and probably wouldn't have overall public support, but is interesting nonetheless.
 

fps

Kit
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
702
Location
London
Safe storage of guns is just plain common sense and should be required in every home.

Sure but without laws to enforce it, people clearly don't follow the guidelines. It's common sense not to shoot people. But horribly, horribly, it has happened, this time at a school.
 

fps

Kit
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
702
Location
London
The RFID chip idea is quite interesting. It'd never happen and probably wouldn't have overall public support, but is interesting nonetheless.

Yeah mordacain I have to say it's not a bad idea. It's very easy to use satellites to track phones, and phones can't be used to kill people! The issue would be with guns getting de-chipped of course, but if that happened you could find out where, or if it was done at the home of the person whose gun it was you could go find out exactly why they did it.
 

Mordacain

Formerly 1-watt brigadier
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
424
Location
St. Louis, MO
Yeah mordacain I have to say it's not a bad idea. It's very easy to use satellites to track phones, and phones can't be used to kill people! The issue would be with guns getting de-chipped of course, but if that happened you could find out where, or if it was done at the home of the person whose gun it was you could go find out exactly why they did it.

Yes, exactly. Honestly, depending on how thoroughly such a system is implemented it could be possible to not "ban" any types of firearms and instead have certain types of firearms (fully automatics, assault rifles, etc) be tightly tracked and owners would have to notify law enforcement when taking them out of the home and file a travel plan (similar to air-traffic coordination).

If it could be implemented then I think most people would prefer it since it then doesn't restrict their ownership of the weapons, just their usage.

Of course that wouldn't sit well with militia, cults and government-insurrection types, but honestly they frighten me more than criminals. :lol:
 

Pablo

Resident Wanker
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
332
Location
Aarhus, Denmark
Let me get this straight: people here are contemplating house inspections and publicly accessible tracking systems for private property, but consider a ban on a piece of hardware that kills 30.000 US citizens every year an infringement? The US went to war for one tenth of those casualties after 9/11...

In the immortal (albeit slightly paraphrased) words of Obélix: Ils sont fous ces Américains!

Again, it's pretty basic stuff:

Less guns = less gun violence
No guns = no gun violence

Cheers

Eske
 

Mordacain

Formerly 1-watt brigadier
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
424
Location
St. Louis, MO
Again, it's pretty basic stuff:

Less guns = less gun violence
No guns = no gun violence

Unfortunately, banning guns outright does not equal gun violence magically ceasing. There is a steeply entrenched criminal element that does not obtain firearms legally. The US is also bordered by highly active criminal cartels that don't necessarily have to obtain their weapons from the US period (though statistically, deaths in Mexico by gun violence have gone up significantly since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004).

Now, there are steps that can be taken to minimize those cartels' influence and affect (namely the legalization of drugs), but I digress...
 

athawulf

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
59
Location
vsa
Again, it's pretty basic stuff:

Less guns = less gun violence
No guns = no gun violence

Cheers

Eske

yep 16 pages into a complex issue/discussion and still getting that.

anyway on the current topic: gun stores that I've shopped at require you to either purchase a lock when you buy a firearm or provide them with a model and serial # of a gun safe you have.

I agree with a few of Mordacain's suggestion with exception to the serialized magazines, it would be a giant logistics issue and then would prohibit change of hands of magazines. Also as a Californian with no special privileges, I'm limited to a 10 round magazine so sometimes I can order 30 round magazine kits from out of state and assemble them with some epoxy in a way that blocks it at the 10th round. This may sound silly to some but for some rifles like the AK series 30round magazines are much more available and inexpensive than their 10 round counterparts. In the serialized magazine hypothetical, what part of the magazine gets serialized? Over time magazines can break or one can need to replace the case, or spring, or follower. If a magazine has a serial and individuals are limited on how many they can have then you cant gift, trade, replace, repair, etc.

When it comes to waiting periods like in California, they are intended as cool down periods so you can't run into a gunstore in the heat of the moment and walk out half an hour later. This is great and should definitely stay in place... for first time firearm purchasers since that logic fails when someone already owns a firearm.

It is easy as hell to get a firearm, even in my state. I did not need to show any knowledge to buy my first shotgun at 18 years old, and when I turned 21 to buy a handgun you must take the easiest test and you bring your "certificate" to the salesman. There is no real safety instruction or first aid instruction. It's funny because I was learning about how many hurdles other countries have to go through in order to get a drivers license (CPR training, first aid knowledge) whereas here I just get my parents to sign that I've driven x amount of hours and take 2 basic tests. The same is true with firearms, we really need some safety instruction and first aid knowledge before being able to pick one up.

Now on the topic of "Assault Rifles". Assault might as well just mean "spooky looking" because there's no functional definition. Adding an extra way to hold the firearm can deem it an "Assault Rifle". I feel that Assault Rifle should just mean any automatic rifle, and that what we're currently "Assault Rifle" should just be called what they are: Semi-auto military style rifles.

There definitely needs to be some sort of gun reform where both sides come together in a manner that benefits the nation. Banning guns is just as ridiculous as posting an armed police officer everywhere. We have a constitutional right to own these firearms, but as responsible citizens we should prove we can handle this right. Safety, first aid, and other forms of instruction should be mandatory before being able to own one.

Anyway this semi incoherent rambling was for people unfamiliar with these issues, be they foreign or just have never purchased one for themself
 

The Atomic Ass

Redefining Sound
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
267
Location
Assland
Yep, I don't like the NRA. And this stupidity is only a small part of why.

Classically, mass shooters shoot, or shoot at cops/uniformed security. Cops are—necessarily—cautious, and so won't usually jump into suicidal situations, except in very extreme cases. (read: the police have as many heroes among their ranks, on average, as the general population)
 

The Atomic Ass

Redefining Sound
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
267
Location
Assland
Seemingly untrained and irresponsible ones at that. Attempting to hit someone at 60yd w/a handgun.....i'm surprised one of these so-called security guards didn't kill an innocent themselves.
While hitting anything at 60 yards with a handgun under stressful conditions is certainly beyond the ability of almost anyone to pick up a handgun, handguns are quite capable of placing rounds in an area much smaller than a center mass, at 100 yards, given to steady hands.

Next time I'm at the range, I'll see what I can do at 60 yards with mine.
 

Pablo

Resident Wanker
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
1,162
Reaction score
332
Location
Aarhus, Denmark
yep 16 pages into a complex issue/discussion and still getting that.
Please excuse my ignorance - it must stem from my non-native perspective.

But do aid my obviously flawed maths: how many life-ending gunshots would be fired at hmm... say an elementary school, if no firearms were present?

I accept the fact that I am on the outside looking in, but it is my opinion that (unless you live in bear country) firearms serve no civil purpose today. Let's face it: no-one on these boards are hunter-gatherers (in the true meaning of the term)!

Let's recap, you (as a nation) choose to accept casualties to the rate of TEN 9/11s every year, for (what I concider) no civil purpose whatsoever. You accept these casualties on the strength of a 221 year-old document drawn up to insure the survival of a young and volatile republic. To this historically significant point, the 2nd ammendment outlived the founding fathers' intended purpose long ago.

You may think me uninformed and/or naïve, but no-one I know owns a handgun or assault rifle... and my countrymen aren't being shot by the thousands for not owning said firearms.

I really just find it perplexing and downright sad that the worlds strongest economy with one of the highest BNPs per capita decides to accept such immense human loss, with little more than a shrug and prayer for the victims' families... Whilst the NRA suggests that the country simply needs more guns to right the wrongs.

Cheers

Eske
 

YngwieJ

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
73
Reaction score
11
Location
Austin, TX
Let me get this straight: people here are contemplating house inspections and publicly accessible tracking systems for private property, but consider a ban on a piece of hardware that kills 30.000 US citizens every year an infringement? The US went to war for one tenth of those casualties after 9/11...

In the immortal (albeit slightly paraphrased) words of Obélix: Ils sont fous ces Américains!

Again, it's pretty basic stuff:

Less guns = less gun violence
No guns = no gun violence

Cheers

Eske
As much as I'd like to one day see a ban on guns in the US, it just isn't a feasible option right now. There are about 250 - 300 million guns in the US (based on various reports), which accounts to more than one per every adult. Additionally, US politics has taken a strong pro-gun stance in recent years and the power of the NRA to influence elections is one that has our elected officials cowering in fear at the very thought of implementing any kind of gun control.
Conservatives of the past:
  • "Guns are an abomination" - Richard Nixon, who also confessed favoring making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles, if not for retaliation from gun owners' at the polls.
  • President George Bush Sr. banned the import of assault weapons in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes"
  • Governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one’s person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.”
  • “I support the Brady Bill... and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.” - Ronald Reagan, March 28, 1991.
  • New York State Governor George Pataki (R), on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called “the nation’s strictest gun controls,” a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and “ballistic fingerprinting” of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned “assault weapons,” the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
  • “I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” - Mitt Romney, 2004
But since these days, public support for gun control has dwindled. It will be interesting to see what the dialogue is in January when gun control legislation comes up for discussion in Congress. So far, many Democrats have been speaking out in favor of gun control, whereas Republicans have been silent. But Boehner has only said that the House will consider it.

If you think the fiscal cliff negotiations have been a soap opera, get ready for gun control to hit Congress next month.
 

The Atomic Ass

Redefining Sound
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
267
Location
Assland
Ohhh gee someone who owns guns and thinks the government is out to get them. What a surprise. :lol:
To be fair... I thought the government was out to get me long before I got guns. :lol:

Do tell how the government is fucking everything up and how we are the worst nation in the world as a consequence.
Hmm... I'm sure some people in this country have a rosier perspective, especially if they have not been too negatively effected by the collapse, (and I don't just mean the financial collapse), a lot of people I know have simply given up looking entirely. This affects statistics, as fewer job applications = lower unemployment, according to government bean counters.

We are a first world nation, rock solid status in the world economy and if you are using the internet much like I am then you are probably doing okay in your day-to-day life. If our government couldn't do anything right none of this would be the case, you wouldn't have an education, and we'd probably be worse off overall.
You realize, of course, that the "worlds" (first, second and third), have nothing to do with wealth, right? Third World - Wikipedia. I'll agree that we are first world, but that is NOT a compliment, it is a pejorative term.

Rock solid status? I've been hearing people talking about dropping the dollar as the reserve now for the last two years.

And I'm pretty bad off, thanks. I'm having to live with my parents because the best I can find around here is seasonal work. And even that, as of late, is starting to dwindle, as people buy fewer and fewer Christmas gifts.

I simply prioritize the relatively minimal cost of Internet over other things, as knowledge is more important to me, than say, keeping my living environment over 60F in the winter. I have a variety of hand-me-down sweatshirts I can put on if I'm chilly.

And although my early education—of which I remember precious little—may have been influenced by government policy, it was not provided.

Do you have any meaningful response to the rest of that post (everything you left out) or is that it???
Sorry, nope. I just picked the best part, and commented appropriately. :lol:

Anyway, let us re-rail the thread. Kids are dead. The insane are doing it. Solutions?
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,048
Reaction score
18,666
Location
Tokyo

The Atomic Ass

Redefining Sound
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
267
Location
Assland
Please excuse my ignorance - it must stem from my non-native perspective.

But do aid my obviously flawed maths: how many life-ending gunshots would be fired at hmm... say an elementary school, if no firearms were present?

I accept the fact that I am on the outside looking in, but it is my opinion that (unless you live in bear country) firearms serve no civil purpose today. Let's face it: no-one on these boards are hunter-gatherers (in the true meaning of the term)!

Let's recap, you (as a nation) choose to accept casualties to the rate of TEN 9/11s every year, for (what I concider) no civil purpose whatsoever. You accept these casualties on the strength of a 221 year-old document drawn up to insure the survival of a young and volatile republic. To this historically significant point, the 2nd ammendment outlived the founding fathers' intended purpose long ago.
We choose to accept ten times THAT number in hospital deaths from fuckups that should not happen, as well. We're more screwed up than you think. (Where's the insanity smiley?)

You may think me uninformed and/or naïve, but no-one I know owns a handgun or assault rifle... and my countrymen aren't being shot by the thousands for not owning said firearms.
Just a vast difference in culture. I have not visited Denmark, so without seeing the culture with my own eyes, and delving into it's history, I can't understand how it works. But I understand how our's works. We came to this country, violently wiped out a portion of the Indian population, and continued doing so almost until WWI, we violently took our independence, and have been violently wielding ourselves around ever since. We're going through some growing pains, in getting ourselves out of our violent tendencies.

I really just find it perplexing and downright sad that the worlds strongest economy with one of the highest BNPs per capita decides to accept such immense human loss, with little more than a shrug and prayer for the victims' families... Whilst the NRA suggests that the country simply needs more guns to right the wrongs.
While I don't like the NRA, they're not wrong on this point. The state with the highest firearms ownership in the country, Wyoming, is dead last in terms of homicides, by any method, and has been for a long time. They have, in their entire state, nearly double the population as Cincinnati, Ohio, to which I live thankfully not too near, and have fewer homicides per year.

Another notable place is Kennesaw, Georgia, which in 1982 mandated gun ownership for all households. (with exceptions for federal legal disability and conscientious objection) This when the population was only about 5,500. Today it is nearly 30,000, and they had 28 straight years without a murder.

Breaking down gun violence by state, and correspondingly, gun ownership by state, we find an inverse relationship.
 

YngwieJ

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
73
Reaction score
11
Location
Austin, TX
While I don't like the NRA, they're not wrong on this point. The state with the highest firearms ownership in the country, Wyoming, is dead last in terms of homicides, by any method, and has been for a long time. They have, in their entire state, nearly double the population as Cincinnati, Ohio, to which I live thankfully not too near, and have fewer homicides per year.

Another notable place is Kennesaw, Georgia, which in 1982 mandated gun ownership for all households. (with exceptions for federal legal disability and conscientious objection) This when the population was only about 5,500. Today it is nearly 30,000, and they had 28 straight years without a murder.

Breaking down gun violence by state, and correspondingly, gun ownership by state, we find an inverse relationship.
This isn't quite accurate. Wyoming has a low homicide rate, but it isn't last. Wikipedia: Gun violence by state

Furthermore, it's important to note, not just homicide rates, but all deaths by a gun; homicides, suicides, and accidents -- this is the real measure of gun violence. And if we look at gun violence by state, there is a direct relationship between gun ownership and gun-related deaths, with a few outliers. By this measure, Wyoming ranks 1st in gun ownership and 2nd in gun deaths. Montana ranks 2nd in gun ownership and 4th in gun deaths. Meanwhile, Massachusetts ranks 48th in gun ownership and 50th in gun deaths; New Jersey 49th in gun ownership, 48th in gun deaths.

I wish this graphic was put into a graph so it'd be easier to see how the numbers correlate -- I may put a graph together myself using the data.
 


Top