|
Post by sideways on Mar 14, 2023 19:08:39 GMT
Yeah, sorry, I’m pretty sick of hearing about all those “responsible gun owners” every time something like this happens. Seems everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren’t. Responsible gun owners generally do not have these problems, irresponsible gun owners do. Maybe the headline should read - "Irresponsible Gun Owner Responsible for Their Own Child's Death" Maybe it is just semantics, but I want the people blamed for this action, not the gun. FFS. I just can’t with you ammosexuals.
|
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 7,871
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Mar 14, 2023 20:27:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 15, 2023 11:14:36 GMT
It's not guns, it is gun OWNERS. Would it be any more tragic if the child had stabbed their sister, gave them something poisonous, no. The parents were neglectful and put their children at risk. I will not blame the tool used, I will always blame the person using it. This is horrific and the parents absolutely should be charged with child endangerment. I really do not care they are suffering because their child died, they are responsible for that child's death. I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Mar 15, 2023 14:06:57 GMT
It's not guns, it is gun OWNERS. Would it be any more tragic if the child had stabbed their sister, gave them something poisonous, no. The parents were neglectful and put their children at risk. I will not blame the tool used, I will always blame the person using it. This is horrific and the parents absolutely should be charged with child endangerment. I really do not care they are suffering because their child died, they are responsible for that child's death. I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me. I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 15, 2023 14:16:33 GMT
I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me. I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. Why do you believe that unfettered ability to own guns for hunting or sport should be prioritized over or even the same as people’s lives? The truth is that we cannot tell which “responsible” gun owner will turn into a mass shooter, decide to kill their family and themselves, or or leave the gun lying around for a child to use. We can’t tell whose teenage son (who “knows better” than to touch the arsenal dad keeps in the house, of course) will take a couple of rifles and shoot up a school. I would argue that no one who keeps weapons of war in a family home is a responsible gun owner. And that at some point we have to prioritize human lives over people having fun with machines designed to kill - as virtually every other wealthy democracy has done, because they accurately realize you can’t have it both ways. Imagine a world where gun owners wake up and say to each other: it’s not going to be me. I’m not going to take the chance that someone in my household is killed by gunfire or kills others that way. As a responsible human being, I’m getting rid of the guns to make sure that never happens to the people I love. The fact that this will never happen shows that American gun owners are not responsible. They prioritize their super happy fun shooting time over their family and everyone else around them. That’s not responsible. It’s selfish and sad.
|
|
luckyexwife
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,067
Jun 25, 2014 21:21:08 GMT
|
Post by luckyexwife on Mar 15, 2023 14:29:42 GMT
I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. Why do you believe that unfettered ability to own guns for hunting or sport should be prioritized over or even the same as people’s lives? The truth is that we cannot tell which “responsible” gun owner will turn into a mass shooter, decide to kill their family and themselves, or or leave the gun lying around for a child to use. We can’t tell whose teenage son (who “knows better” than to touch the arsenal dad keeps in the house, of course) will take a couple of rifles and shoot up a school. I would argue that no one who keeps weapons of war in a family home is a responsible gun owner. And that at some point we have to prioritize human lives over people having fun with machines designed to kill - as virtually every other wealthy democracy has done, because they accurately realize you can’t have it both ways. Imagine a world where gun owners wake up and say to each other: it’s not going to be me. I’m not going to take the chance that someone in my household is killed by gunfire or kills others that way. As a responsible human being, I’m getting rid of the guns to make sure that never happens to the people I love. The fact that this will never happen shows that American gun owners are not responsible. They prioritize their super happy fun shooting time over their family and everyone else around them. That’s not responsible. It’s selfish and sad. What common sense gun legislation would you like to see?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 14:38:09 GMT
It's not guns, it is gun OWNERS. Would it be any more tragic if the child had stabbed their sister, gave them something poisonous, no. The parents were neglectful and put their children at risk. I will not blame the tool used, I will always blame the person using it. This is horrific and the parents absolutely should be charged with child endangerment. I really do not care they are suffering because their child died, they are responsible for that child's death. I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me. Agree 100%. If we approached gun safety the way that we approached automobile safety, gun violence could be significantly lower. We have the technology, why not make smart guns that require a fingerprint, 6 number verification or something else that would prevent children from using guns and prevent criminals from using stolen guns?
|
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,018
Location: Munich
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Mar 15, 2023 14:44:13 GMT
Why do you believe that unfettered ability to own guns for hunting or sport should be prioritized over or even the same as people’s lives? The truth is that we cannot tell which “responsible” gun owner will turn into a mass shooter, decide to kill their family and themselves, or or leave the gun lying around for a child to use. We can’t tell whose teenage son (who “knows better” than to touch the arsenal dad keeps in the house, of course) will take a couple of rifles and shoot up a school. I would argue that no one who keeps weapons of war in a family home is a responsible gun owner. And that at some point we have to prioritize human lives over people having fun with machines designed to kill - as virtually every other wealthy democracy has done, because they accurately realize you can’t have it both ways. Imagine a world where gun owners wake up and say to each other: it’s not going to be me. I’m not going to take the chance that someone in my household is killed by gunfire or kills others that way. As a responsible human being, I’m getting rid of the guns to make sure that never happens to the people I love. The fact that this will never happen shows that American gun owners are not responsible. They prioritize their super happy fun shooting time over their family and everyone else around them. That’s not responsible. It’s selfish and sad. What common sense gun legislation would you like to see? I am not American, but have lived in two countries that have what I consider to be sensible gun laws. Firstly, I think that all gun owners should be licensed, and should have to pass both a written and practical test to get that license, like we do before we let someone drive. Licensing should include having safe storage for weapons. There should be a limit to how many guns one person can own. People who breach gun laws should lose their license to own and use a gun, and unlicensed usage should result in a jail term. There should also be limits on what types of guns people can own. You don't need a semi-automatic assault weapon to shoot deer, or even to be safe from critters like snakes and coyotes on your property in more remote areas.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 14:44:30 GMT
I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me. I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. Gun violence is not that complicated. Other developed countries have the same video games, similar mental health issues and extremists. But other countries do not have the same gun violence that we do. It really is that simple, it's the guns. There are all kinds of ways to increase gun safety. Federal background checks without loopholes, gun safety classes, minimum age of 21 to purchase guns, ban assault weapons, red flag laws, technology like fingerprints or 6 digit verification codes. Just like automobile safety, there isn't 1 approach that will be the magic solution. It's going to take multiple approaches at the federal level to reduce gun violence.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 15, 2023 14:59:54 GMT
Why do you believe that unfettered ability to own guns for hunting or sport should be prioritized over or even the same as people’s lives? The truth is that we cannot tell which “responsible” gun owner will turn into a mass shooter, decide to kill their family and themselves, or or leave the gun lying around for a child to use. We can’t tell whose teenage son (who “knows better” than to touch the arsenal dad keeps in the house, of course) will take a couple of rifles and shoot up a school. I would argue that no one who keeps weapons of war in a family home is a responsible gun owner. And that at some point we have to prioritize human lives over people having fun with machines designed to kill - as virtually every other wealthy democracy has done, because they accurately realize you can’t have it both ways. Imagine a world where gun owners wake up and say to each other: it’s not going to be me. I’m not going to take the chance that someone in my household is killed by gunfire or kills others that way. As a responsible human being, I’m getting rid of the guns to make sure that never happens to the people I love. The fact that this will never happen shows that American gun owners are not responsible. They prioritize their super happy fun shooting time over their family and everyone else around them. That’s not responsible. It’s selfish and sad. What common sense gun legislation would you like to see? It doesn’t matter. The gun lobby will defeat any legislation that is proposed because of money, and many Americans will cheer and keep voting for those bought and paid for by the gun lobby because they are not responsible gun owners. They are selfish, reckless, and have a kind of mental sickness about hoisting super fun killing machines and calling it sport.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Mar 15, 2023 16:35:06 GMT
I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. Gun violence is not that complicated. Other developed countries have the same video games, similar mental health issues and extremists. But other countries do not have the same gun violence that we do. It really is that simple, it's the guns. There are all kinds of ways to increase gun safety. Federal background checks without loopholes, gun safety classes, minimum age of 21 to purchase guns, ban assault weapons, red flag laws, technology like fingerprints or 6 digit verification codes. Just like automobile safety, there isn't 1 approach that will be the magic solution. It's going to take multiple approaches at the federal level to reduce gun violence. The only control you mentioned I am slightly hesitant about (and I mean slightly) is the red flag laws. The rest make sense to me. Responsible gun owners should not have a problem going through a few extra steps to acquire a gun legally. Unfortunately, the rhetoric out there is that one side wants to remove all guns from everyone, and I don't believe that is what the average person wants. I could be wrong though. I want people blamed, people held responsible and people working to make things better. This may be a stretch, but when pools were the leading cause of death in children, we did not ban pools. Safety features were created to keep children safe. Same with guns, make the laws that will make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 16:41:50 GMT
Gun violence is not that complicated. Other developed countries have the same video games, similar mental health issues and extremists. But other countries do not have the same gun violence that we do. It really is that simple, it's the guns. There are all kinds of ways to increase gun safety. Federal background checks without loopholes, gun safety classes, minimum age of 21 to purchase guns, ban assault weapons, red flag laws, technology like fingerprints or 6 digit verification codes. Just like automobile safety, there isn't 1 approach that will be the magic solution. It's going to take multiple approaches at the federal level to reduce gun violence. The only control you mentioned I am slightly hesitant about (and I mean slightly) is the red flag laws. The rest make sense to me. Responsible gun owners should not have a problem going through a few extra steps to acquire a gun legally. Unfortunately, the rhetoric out there is that one side wants to remove all guns from everyone, and I don't believe that is what the average person wants. I could be wrong though. I want people blamed, people held responsible and people working to make things better. This may be a stretch, but when pools were the leading cause of death in children, we did not ban pools. Safety features were created to keep children safe. Same with guns, make the laws that will make a difference. Pools is a stretch and not a good analogy. Cars are a better analogy. We didn't ban cars, but we did make them significantly safer. Anti driving under the influence campaigns, education in schools on drinking & driving, drivers ed classes, drivers licenses, state inspections, requirements to have car insurance, anti lock brakes, seat belt laws, car seat laws, air bags etc.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Mar 15, 2023 16:50:41 GMT
The only control you mentioned I am slightly hesitant about (and I mean slightly) is the red flag laws. The rest make sense to me. Responsible gun owners should not have a problem going through a few extra steps to acquire a gun legally. Unfortunately, the rhetoric out there is that one side wants to remove all guns from everyone, and I don't believe that is what the average person wants. I could be wrong though. I want people blamed, people held responsible and people working to make things better. This may be a stretch, but when pools were the leading cause of death in children, we did not ban pools. Safety features were created to keep children safe. Same with guns, make the laws that will make a difference. Pools is a stretch and not a good analogy. Cars are a better analogy. We didn't ban cars, but we did make them significantly safer. Anti driving under the influence campaigns, education in schools on drinking & driving, drivers ed classes, drivers licenses, state inspections, requirements to have car insurance, anti lock brakes, seat belt laws, car seat laws, air bags etc. You are right, cars are a better example. I was looking up some data yesterday and pools was kind of stuck in my head. Common sense laws and people using common sense would make the biggest impact.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 17:37:36 GMT
I don't agree with everything, but 97 percent is a group that focuses on finding common ground for gun safety. www.97percent.usI do agree that we're not going to make any progress with gun safety until gun owners and gun advocates stop seeing each other as the enemy and start working together. There's plenty of common ground. Federal rules on background checks is something around 90% of Americans agree on and should be low hanging fruit. However, given the divisive nature of politics these days and the significant contributions to Republican campaigns, it's impossible. Democrats might need to compromise and be willing to accept less than perfect laws as first step measures.
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,979
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Mar 15, 2023 17:40:07 GMT
I agree that it is the owners, although I won’t ever understand why some people need/want semi-automatic guns. But here is my problem. How do you sort responsible owners from irresponsible owners? Until someone is shot or killed, there does not seem to be a reliable way to tell one from the other. And that is why there needs to be some common sense regulation aimed at everyone. Much like speed limits and DUI laws apply to everyone, even though most people would never drink and drive. If my logic is wrong-and I haven’t had nearly enough coffee yet-please tell me. I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. I don't think you will ever keep guns out of the hands of those who want to harm others. If they want them, they will break the law to get them. I believe they can even make their own on 3D printers now that will bypass metal detectors, and while not as accurate, that won't matter if they are up close and personal to the person they want to kill. But I do think there are laws that would go a long way to avoid deaths caused by "irresponsible" owners. 1. Strict civil liability laws. I own a pool, and I have done all I can do to keep it inaccessible from "unauthorized users" by fencing it with a locked gate. However, if a child under the age of 18 breaks the lock or climbs the fence and is injured in my pool when I am not there, I am still responsible because it is an "attractive nuisance." This standard should apply to guns as well. If a kid gets your gun and kills or injures someone, even accidentally, you are financially responsible for that person's death or injuries. 2. Insurance/licensing requirements. If you have a gun, it must be licensed and insured for liability, just like a car. Failure to meet those standards would be a crime. The liability insurance would have to be presented before getting the license. The rates for the insurance would probably be based on things like passing a gun safety course, whether you have a gun safe or not, whether the gun safe is set so you need your fingerprint to open it, etc. 3. Criminal liability for someone else using your gun. If your gun was unsecured and loaded when the child found it, I think you should automatically be charged with assault, murder, or manslaughter, whatever crime is appropriate under state statutes. I think it would fall under the "reckless" or "wanton" indifference to human life, i.e. you know it is unsafe to keep an unsecured loaded gun around children but you do it anyway. 4. "Fingerprinting" all guns when they are sold. Every gun should have a ballistics fingerprint taken before it is sold. I'm sure it would add to the cost of the gun, but guess what, all those safety regulations on cars add to that price as well, so too bad. If you purchase a gun and it is lost or stolen, it is on you to file a police report. Immediately. If it is later found to have been used in a crime, the investigators now have place to start looking for who was involved in the shooting, and they will be looking at who had access to you and the gun. If you end up with multiple "lost" guns, you are now on the radar for investigation. If you sell your gun, it is on you to make sure the registration is updated to include the name of the buyer, who must pass whatever background checks, licensing requirements are necessary for registration. Again, more expense, but too bad, so sad. None of these measures has a snowball's chance at getting passed, except perhaps for the "attractive nuisance" one. But they would go a long way toward forcing irresponsible people to act more responsibly if they knew there were serious consequences for being careless.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 17:54:45 GMT
I understand this and maybe in some way I am not explaining myself very well. Gun control is so much more than just being responsible or irresponsible. There is a mental health issue that contributes to this, there is hate that contributes to this, there are extremists on both sides that contribute to this. I do believe that if irresponsible gun owners were held more accountable it would make gun owners more aware. But when they get a slap on the wrist, there will never be true change. And I am not talking it has to be at the level of a death, but any kind of irresponsible act with a gun. Transporting a gun in an unsafe way should mean you lose the right to have guns. No one was hurt, but you increased the probability of someone getting hurt so no guns for you. Legislatures need to step up and hold people accountable. So my question, and I am serious about this, what laws can be put in place to keep guns out of those intent on hurting others? What can be put in place so those that use guns for hunting or sport can still get them, but we somehow weed out the ones that just will not take the responsibility of owning a gun seriously? Sorry I am side tracking this thread. I don't think you will ever keep guns out of the hands of those who want to harm others. If they want them, they will break the law to get them. I believe they can even make their own on 3D printers now that will bypass metal detectors, and while not as accurate, that won't matter if they are up close and personal to the person they want to kill. But I do think there are laws that would go a long way to avoid deaths caused by "irresponsible" owners. 1. Strict civil liability laws. I own a pool, and I have done all I can do to keep it inaccessible from "unauthorized users" by fencing it with a locked gate. However, if a child under the age of 18 breaks the lock or climbs the fence and is injured in my pool when I am not there, I am still responsible because it is an "attractive nuisance." This standard should apply to guns as well. If a kid gets your gun and kills or injures someone, even accidentally, you are financially responsible for that person's death or injuries. 2. Insurance/licensing requirements. If you have a gun, it must be licensed and insured for liability, just like a car. Failure to meet those standards would be a crime. The liability insurance would have to be presented before getting the license. The rates for the insurance would probably be based on things like passing a gun safety course, whether you have a gun safe or not, whether the gun safe is set so you need your fingerprint to open it, etc. 3. Criminal liability for someone else using your gun. If your gun was unsecured and loaded when the child found it, I think you should automatically be charged with assault, murder, or manslaughter, whatever crime is appropriate under state statutes. I think it would fall under the "reckless" or "wanton" indifference to human life, i.e. you know it is unsafe to keep an unsecured loaded gun around children but you do it anyway. 4. "Fingerprinting" all guns when they are sold. Every gun should have a ballistics fingerprint taken before it is sold. I'm sure it would add to the cost of the gun, but guess what, all those safety regulations on cars add to that price as well, so too bad. If you purchase a gun and it is lost or stolen, it is on you to file a police report. Immediately. If it is later found to have been used in a crime, the investigators now have place to start looking for who was involved in the shooting, and they will be looking at who had access to you and the gun. If you end up with multiple "lost" guns, you are now on the radar for investigation. If you sell your gun, it is on you to make sure the registration is updated to include the name of the buyer, who must pass whatever background checks, licensing requirements are necessary for registration. Again, more expense, but too bad, so sad. None of these measures has a snowball's chance at getting passed, except perhaps for the "attractive nuisance" one. But they would go a long way toward forcing irresponsible people to act more responsibly if they knew there were serious consequences for being careless. Yes to all of this. I'll just to add that. In order for anything to change, we also need to get rid of the broad immunity that gun manufacturers currently have. Maybe similar to tobacco, once manufacturers are held accountable, they might make safer products like guns with a fingerprint mechanism, 6 digit verification or something similar. If we have facial recognition on our phones, why can't we do something similar for guns? Manufacturers are not going to do this on their own, so we need federal requirements and laws how;ding the manufacturers accountable. Similar to the laws about alcohol and tobacco advertising, federal laws about advertising guns, especially to minors, might help as well.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 15, 2023 18:18:51 GMT
Gun violence is not that complicated. Other developed countries have the same video games, similar mental health issues and extremists. But other countries do not have the same gun violence that we do. It really is that simple, it's the guns. There are all kinds of ways to increase gun safety. Federal background checks without loopholes, gun safety classes, minimum age of 21 to purchase guns, ban assault weapons, red flag laws, technology like fingerprints or 6 digit verification codes. Just like automobile safety, there isn't 1 approach that will be the magic solution. It's going to take multiple approaches at the federal level to reduce gun violence. The only control you mentioned I am slightly hesitant about (and I mean slightly) is the red flag laws. The rest make sense to me. Responsible gun owners should not have a problem going through a few extra steps to acquire a gun legally. Unfortunately, the rhetoric out there is that one side wants to remove all guns from everyone, and I don't believe that is what the average person wants. I could be wrong though. I want people blamed, people held responsible and people working to make things better. This may be a stretch, but when pools were the leading cause of death in children, we did not ban pools. Safety features were created to keep children safe. Same with guns, make the laws that will make a difference. Why are you hesitant about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, stalkers, and those with a history of violent mental illness? BTW this is why I refuse to get drawn into any conversation about what I think would help. Gun enthusiasts always have a thousand reasons why they don’t like this or that restriction - often because they have a family member whose guns would be taken under such a restriction - and the upshot is that no one is willing to put human lives over hunting and target shooting. So I don’t see the point in offering a good-faith argument that will simply be dismissed point by point.
|
|
|
Post by Lexica on Mar 15, 2023 19:48:59 GMT
My ex purchased a revolver from a cop friend probably 50 years ago. I knew he bought it, but he put it away and I didn’t think about it again until I found it, loaded but with a thumb lock on the trigger, on the top shelf of the master bedroom closet. If I had remembered it, I would have assumed he took it with him when he moved out. It was there the day I brought my newborn son home and was there throughout his childhood. It was sitting on the back of the shelf where I kept the boxed games! I am not tall enough to have seen it and only discovered it when I climbed up on a step ladder to pack those shelves for this move.
I don’t think my son could have gotten the thumb lock off, and I would like to think he would have left it alone and come and got me immediately if he did find it. His father kept guns out all over their house. I learned this when my son came home from a weekend with his father and told me there was a rifle of some sort sitting on the floor of the spare room. He told me he remembered our conversation about guns and that he wanted me to know about it and that he didn’t touch it. I asked if he told his dad that he saw it and he said he figured his dad wouldn’t care since he probably is the one who left it there in the first place. Smart kid.
We had a policy between us that he could tell me anything and I would not repeat it to his father, but this needed to be handled. I told him it was important that I let his dad know he saw it and to purchase a gun safe. I told him to let me know if his dad got mad at him for mentioning the gun to me and I would handle it.
I called his dad and calmly told him that our son saw the rifle and that while I didn’t think he would mess with it, he had friends from the neighborhood over to play and one of them might. I did my best not to freak out on him and call him irresponsible. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised to hear him apologize and to promise to buy a large gun safe immediately. My son returned from his next visit and said his dad wanted him to tell me he got the gun safe.
So even if you are a not a gun owner, things can happen that you don’t expect. It made me so thankful that even though I had no idea there was a loaded gun in our home, we had more than one conversation about how dangerous guns are.
We had a neighbor who was an officer and I knew he had multiple guns all over his home, not locked up. I saw one in the kitchen cabinet myself when visiting there one afternoon. They also had three rowdy boys and my son was in their home occasionally. The oldest boy was constantly getting into trouble from the time he was old enough to walk. It scared me that their boys had easy access to these weapons. Nothing did happen with those guns in our neighborhood, but that oldest son ended up going to prison twice, once when he was 17 and again at 25. The first was for armed robbery and the second for assault that put a guy in the hospital. I don’t know if the gun used in the robbery was one of his father’s guns or not.
If you have kids living at home, even if you personally don’t own guns, please educate your kids about them and teach them what to do in the event they find themselves around a gun at some point. They seem to be everywhere and even more than they were when I was raising my son.
I read about the kids in Texas a couple of days ago. I stupidly assumed the parents would be charged with something. I don’t know if this was their own home and if the gun was theirs or not, but they would have been negligent if it was their gun. I know Texans love their guns, but surely they love their kids too and would put laws into place to keep kids and guns apart. At least until a certain age and after they have attended an approved safety course. I know young kids on rural ranches might need a gun for snakes and wild predators when out and about on their ranch so I understand the family might choose to give them to kids a lot younger than I would, but please, make them safe first.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Mar 15, 2023 20:11:16 GMT
The only control you mentioned I am slightly hesitant about (and I mean slightly) is the red flag laws. The rest make sense to me. Responsible gun owners should not have a problem going through a few extra steps to acquire a gun legally. Unfortunately, the rhetoric out there is that one side wants to remove all guns from everyone, and I don't believe that is what the average person wants. I could be wrong though. I want people blamed, people held responsible and people working to make things better. This may be a stretch, but when pools were the leading cause of death in children, we did not ban pools. Safety features were created to keep children safe. Same with guns, make the laws that will make a difference. Why are you hesitant about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, stalkers, and those with a history of violent mental illness? BTW this is why I refuse to get drawn into any conversation about what I think would help. Gun enthusiasts always have a thousand reasons why they don’t like this or that restriction - often because they have a family member whose guns would be taken under such a restriction - and the upshot is that no one is willing to put human lives over hunting and target shooting. So I don’t see the point in offering a good-faith argument that will simply be dismissed point by point. I have absolutely no concern over people with violent histories to not be allowed to get guns, nope no concerns at all and I wish there was proper legislation to stop it now. My concern, and I did say it was a slight concern, is the potential for some to over report the possibility of someone maybe becoming violent. I know that would be the extreme and be extremely rare, but that is my very slight concern. History of violence, nope no chance, I will even say history of just being stupid with a gun of any kind, nope no chance. You have proven you are not responsible enough to have a gun so, no gun for you. I am looking at the person that was transporting their gun on the car seat next to them. No one was threatened, no one hurt, but you have proven to me you do not have the right to bear arms anymore. You are not responsible enough for that right. I knew I was stepping into something, but for those that had a conversation with me thank you. I do appreciate other thoughts and opinions even if I don't agree with them.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 15, 2023 22:01:02 GMT
I’m going to wade into this discussion. I’m not a fan of guns but acknowledge that some people actually do have a legitimate need to own a gun or rifle.
My target are those who own guns for the reasons of “what if” or “just in case”. In other words that don’t have a specific reason to own a gun but do. This country has a gun problem and these folks contribute to that problem a lot IMO.
There is only one reason guns exist and that’s to kill. There is no other reason for them to be in existence except to kill.
These are %’s I have read and could be outdated but IMO give one an idea why I say this country has a gun problem.
The United States has 4% of the world’s population but own 40% of all the guns in the world. In the United States roughly a little over 1/3 of the residents of this country own between them 40% of all the guns in the entire world.
Roughly a couple hundred thousand guns are reported stolen every year. That does not include the guns that are stolen but not reported stolen. The recovery rate of stolen guns is about 11%.
If the United States is a civilized country of laws why do roughly 100M residents feel the need to own 40% of the guns in the entire world?
The American People were conned into believing the 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to own guns by the NRA and Scalia and the other justices that agreed with Scalia’s decision in the Heller Case. Scalia dismissed the judges and other officials that for 218 years believed the 2nd Amendment did not give an individual the right to own guns as being wrong because he was right in his interpretation of the intent of the 2nd Amendment. He claimed he did a lot of reading to come to the conclusion that he was right. To Scalia’s credit he did write that there could be limitations applied. But unfortunately we are dealing with judges who consistently claim a law regarding guns is unconstitutional.
So here we are building safe rooms in our schools to protect our children from mass shooters. I saw that on the news last night. Some school is installing these “safe rooms” and they were demonstrating how they worked. Seriously when you start building safe rooms in the schools to protect the kids from mass shooters then you have a big gun problem.
What do I think needs to be done? Hold the gun owners responsible for the actions of their guns. There are too many loopholes so IMO too many gun owners are not being held accountable when they should. A higher degree of responsibility should be put on gun owners since the only reason to have a gun is to kill. I mean it’s not like you can hope on your gun and drive to the store.
First All gun laws have to be national gun laws. This state thing isn’t working and the problems guns cause is not state issue but a United States issue and should be treated as such.
Second, as already noted, all guns should be registered. And I will add tracked from the time they are manufactured or imported until they are destroyed. And it needs to be done on a national level. Once again the gun problem is not state specific but a United States problem. When I say tracked that means when the gun is sold the owner is listed and every new owner after that until the gun is destroyed. If the gun is stolen it must be reported and noted in this national data base. If the gun is sold and the data base is not updated with the new owner and the gun is used in a crime the last owner on record will be held as an accessory to that crime. Same thing if the guns is stolen and the data base is not updated and a crime is committed.
Third I think there should be an age limit when one can buy guns.
Fourth regardless of the circumstances if a member of the house or a visitor is killed accidentally or commits suicide because the gun was accessible to these individuals the owner will be held accountable. IMO to many of the “what if” & “just in case” crowd doesn’t take gun ownership seriously and that is why so many guns are stolen every year and we have the tragic shootings of kids many who are toddlers. Maybe if we held people more accountable for the actions of their guns fewer people would buy guns, especially those that don’t have a legitimate need for a gun. Fewer guns purchased means fewer guns stolen that end up on the streets in the hands of criminals and gangs.
Fifth the understanding that not every type of gun manufactured should be sold to John Q Public. Especially those guns that are fashioned in any way of those used on the battlefield like an AR-15. If one needs an AR-15 to hunt Bambi then maybe they shouldn’t be hunting.
Sixth pass laws that challenge the Heller decision. It needs to be overturned.
Back to the 2nd Amendment being a con job.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment. Here is his first draft. As noted below, if the intent was to give the individual the right to own guns why did Madison feel the need to include the bolded part at all. The easiest amendment to write would have been one actually giving the individual the right to own guns. You would just simply write “individuals have the right to own guns period”.
“Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 15, 2023 22:31:55 GMT
Why are you hesitant about keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, stalkers, and those with a history of violent mental illness? BTW this is why I refuse to get drawn into any conversation about what I think would help. Gun enthusiasts always have a thousand reasons why they don’t like this or that restriction - often because they have a family member whose guns would be taken under such a restriction - and the upshot is that no one is willing to put human lives over hunting and target shooting. So I don’t see the point in offering a good-faith argument that will simply be dismissed point by point. I have absolutely no concern over people with violent histories to not be allowed to get guns, nope no concerns at all and I wish there was proper legislation to stop it now. My concern, and I did say it was a slight concern, is the potential for some to over report the possibility of someone maybe becoming violent. I know that would be the extreme and be extremely rare, but that is my very slight concern. History of violence, nope no chance, I will even say history of just being stupid with a gun of any kind, nope no chance. You have proven you are not responsible enough to have a gun so, no gun for you. I am looking at the person that was transporting their gun on the car seat next to them. No one was threatened, no one hurt, but you have proven to me you do not have the right to bear arms anymore. You are not responsible enough for that right. I knew I was stepping into something, but for those that had a conversation with me thank you. I do appreciate other thoughts and opinions even if I don't agree with them. I think public safety outweighs any concerns about over reporting. Red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders provide a cooling off period. Especially for teenagers, removing guns can prevent suicide by removing easy access. Extreme risk protection orders vary by state but most require a judge to sign an emergency short term order. Within a specific time frame, there is a hearing and evidence has to be presented to show the person is a risk to themselves or others. The gun owner has the opportunity to defend themselves before a final order is issued. If granted, it generally only lasts for a year.
|
|