Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[ajb]

Millions of guns bought with the intention of self protection or other innocent purposes end up in the hands of criminals.

This is the kind of thing that more restrictive gun control would reduce. Removing more guns from society at large will have the knock on effect of making it harder for criminals to obtain them.

 

Most Americans with guns are not using them for nefarious reasons. For them, it seems kind of silly to punish the innocent along with the guilty.

What I would suggest is a ban on hand guns and similar weapons that can be concealed, a ban on weapons that can discharge more than three rounds without reloading and restrictions on the kinds of ammunition permitted. Anyone who wants to use a rife for hunting or sport shooting can, under the proper controls and restrictions. This would be more in line with a large part of the civilised world.

 

If you're going to ignore my request to move the conversation forward on to something potentially more productive than an umpteenth rehash of already known talking points, at the very least perhaps you could do so without repeating obvious myths and empirically debunked falsehoods.

Thank you for your links.

Edited July 13, 2015 by ajb

[Ten oz]

This is the kind of thing that more restrictive gun control would reduce. Removing more guns from society at large will have the knock on effect of making it harder for criminals to obtain them.

 

 

What I would suggest is a ban on hand guns and similar weapons that can be concealed, a ban on weapons that can discharge more than three rounds without reloading and restrictions on the kinds of ammunition permitted. Anyone who wants to use a rife for hunting or sport shooting can, under the proper controls and restrictions. This would be more in line with a large part of the civilised world.

 

 

Thank you for your links.

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.

I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

[ajb]

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now.

This really is the problem. Today US society sees the tragedies simply as an acceptable price for the liberty of being able to carry a gun. If this can be changed then the laws will follow...

 

The suggestions you make would be a great start.

[dimreepr]

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.

I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

 

 

This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

[Ten oz]

 

 

This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

Here in the United States guns are viewed as a right. Gun safes are expensive and take up space. requiring all gun owners to have one would be viewed as a burden that interfered with with gun owners rights by making the cost of ownership too expensive. So it would only be political practical to ask people with a collection of guns to own a gun safe. Most hunters have a minium of 3 firearms: a rifle for large game like deer, a shotgun for birds, and a pistol for protection. So politically it would never go over requiring gun safes for 3 or less guns. Five or more is a good compromise where people are still being allowed gun ownership without too much governmental burden.

As for "when not in use", sadly in the United States some people sleep with guns under their pillows. I have heard it agrued many times that a gun safe would be too difficult to access if a criminal was already in the house walking down the hallway. A silly low percentage scenario for sure but one that is religiously vivid and fresh on the mind of many pro gun advocates. Also many gun owners like to hide guns around the house for quick access. It is a mental dissorder in my opinion but one that millions have and millions more would politically defend. So truly even demanded half the guns be locked in a safe when not in use is a lot to ask for. Again, we are talking about a political enviroment where owning military assualt weapons doesn't raise any eyebrows.

This really is the problem. Today US society sees the tragedies simply as an acceptable price for the liberty of being able to carry a gun. If this can be changed then the laws will follow...

 

The suggestions you make would be a great start.

Sadly U.S. society doesn't see mass shootings as having anythin to do with guns. Many people honestly feel that if the guns had not been accessible the killers would have just built a bomb and killed just as many if not more people.

[overtone]

I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

This - establishing legal responsibility in gun ownership aligned with the will of the community - is the basic approach I and many others (probably a very large majority) - of Americans favor and would support if they regarded their government as reliable.

 

I would quarrel with the details ( "in use" needs a careful definition, the nature of the gun locks needs careful description, the nature of the "safe" needs careful description), and drop the "five" to "two" (two unused guns per owner available outside a gun safe at any given moment, locked or unlocked), but that's ordinary legislative discussion to be handled at the appropriate level of governance.

 

The reasons this approach cannot gain political representation in the US these days are visible here and everywhere, and are enough to drive a grown man to drink and despair. I cannot put coercive police power behind the whims of someone who thinks keeping a shotgun on a rack over the garden view door of a rural home, or a firearm safely handy in the bedroom at night in a particularly dodgy city neighborhood, is a "mental disorder".

 

Limiting the coercive power of government officials who think like that is the whole purpose of a Constitution.

 

 

 

Here in the United States guns are viewed as a right.

It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact. People have the right to keep and bear arms in the US. Any politician who represents the stance that Constitutional rights are just somebody's point of view is going to lose my vote. See how that works?

 

 

 

Today US society sees the tragedies simply as an acceptable price for the liberty of being able to carry a gun. If this can be changed then the laws will follow... There are two ways to change that: change "acceptable" to "avoidable", change "liberty" to "privilege". Door number one I vote for, and so do almost all Americans. Door number two I revolt against, and so will enough Americans to wreck the agenda. Edited July 13, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

 

 

It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact. People have the right to keep and bear arms in the US. Any politician who represents the stance that Constitutional rights are just somebody's point of view is going to lose my vote. See how that works?

 

The constitution once held the view that blacks were 3/5 a person and only land owners deserved the right to vote.The Supreme Court just came to the view that the constitution ensures gay people equal rights. None of it is written in stone. All of it is subjective and can be amended to better serve the will of the people. Any politician who represents the stance that the constitution is a death pack would lose my vote. See how that works?

[overtone]

The constitution once held the view that blacks were 3/5 a person and only land owners deserved the right to vote.

It doesn't any more.

 

The Supreme Court just came to the view that the constitution ensures gay people equal rights.

So? That is an expansion, not a restriction, of rights, and is in full accordance with the language of Constitution.

 

None of it is written in stone. All of it is subjective and can be amended to better serve the will of the people.

Until you amend it, it says what it says. There is nothing "subjective" about the meaning of the 2nd amendment - its application to law and life of course rides on interpretation, but the language itself is straightforward.

 

 

 

 

Any politician who represents the stance that the constitution is a death pack would lose my vote. See how that works?

The notion that establishing the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is a "death pack" is a mental disorder, an irrational and neurotic and juvenile fear. And yes, I've been watching that screw up American politics for decades.

 

Gun safes, btw, are not that expensive. Anyone with three decent guns and enough ammo to practice with them can afford a gun safe.

Edited July 14, 2015 by overtone

[MigL]

Just to stir up sh*t...

 

Let me get this straight.

There are 1.4 million guns stolen from law abiding gun owners, and subsequently used for the commission of crimes by the criminals that stole them.

Now I agree, a few of these crimes may have been averted if the guns had not been available for stealing, but there would still be knives, bats pipes, cars, etc., but this seems to me more of an argument for jailing the people who steal and then use the guns to commit crimes.

If those people were in Jail absolutely NONE of the crimes would have been committed.

 

So Ten oz, are you saying we need to build more jails and jail more criminals ?

[Ten oz]

Just to stir up sh*t...

 

Let me get this straight.

There are 1.4 million guns stolen from law abiding gun owners, and subsequently used for the commission of crimes by the criminals that stole them.

Now I agree, a few of these crimes may have been averted if the guns had not been available for stealing, but there would still be knives, bats pipes, cars, etc., but this seems to me more of an argument for jailing the people who steal and then use the guns to commit crimes.

If those people were in Jail absolutely NONE of the crimes would have been committed.

 

So Ten oz, are you saying we need to build more jails and jail more criminals ?

No, I am saying people can have all the legal guns they want but they have to be responsible with them. Responsible in this context simply means keeping them out of the hands if people who would miss use them. Asking gun owners to use gun locks and gun safes does not equal more prison or more prison inmates.

 

As for the argument that if guns weren't available criminals would just use knives, pipes, bats, etc I disagree. One of the main driving forces for people doing anything is often convieneince or ease. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it and vice versa. Easier hiking trails are more well traveled than hard one. It isnt complicated to understand. Robbing a taxi drive or store clerk with a pipe isn't easy as doing it with a gun therefore less people ould be willing to try it.

[dimreepr]

As for the argument that if guns weren't available criminals would just use knives, pipes, bats, etc I disagree. One of the main driving forces for people doing anything is often convieneince or ease. The easier something is to do the more likely people are to do it and vice versa. Easier hiking trails are more well traveled than hard one. It isnt complicated to understand. Robbing a taxi drive or store clerk with a pipe isn't easy as doing it with a gun therefore less people ould be willing to try it.

 

 

And less people would die.

Edited July 14, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

To take the last point first,

If it's so damned sacrosanct, why do they keep changing it?

if they accept that it can change why pretend that the current version is some sort of holy writ that an't be altered.

 

The purpose of a militia is to ensure that you can defend yourselves. Well being largely surrounded by oceans helps there. In any event, since the US has an extraordinarily large standing military

(1) it is unlikely to be attacked by another country- at least not in a way where a militia would help.

(2) If the government decides to oppress the people, just exactly how far will your pop-guns get you when you take on the combined US armed forces?

 

On a related note, you may have missed this, but your police forces are armed and are actually well regulated and subject to locally elected control; they are your militia.

 

 

You say "But people have died as a consequence of the exercise of those rights,"

 

OK, what do I need to say to get someone killed?

 

What's the magic "death spell" that I need to speak to bring about someone's demise?

"Bump"

I'd like an answer or two please.

in particular, I have a Prime Minister who I could do without, so what do I have to say to kill him?

[Ten oz]

"Bump"

I'd like an answer or two please.

in particular, I have a Prime Minister who I could do without, so what do I have to say to kill him?

It is even more convoluted, in my opinion, than what you describe. Forget about our (USA) massive military. Take it out of the equation because a large federal power oppressing state and local powers is one of the stated concerns of many gun advocates. Every state has a fully militarized national guard that works under the state's Governor and every state has various form(s) of state police. On top of that every county has a sheriffs department and every city has a local police department. All of the above list state and local agencies are armed to the teeth. Assault weapons, tanks, helicopters, body armour, tear gas, etc, etc, etc. So even if the average ordinary citizen were not armed local municipalities would still be heavily protected from outside oppressing interests. The "militia" is already armed and ready. When the constitution was written states did not have contiously manned and armed national guards, aka state militias, and armed police forces did not exist. Impossible to say for sure how a regulated militia would be interrupted under these different conditions.

[John Cuthber]

"Take it out of the equation because a large federal power oppressing state and local powers is one of the stated concerns of many gun advocates. "

Can we put it back on exactly that basis please?.

 

One of the points I was making is that the gun advocates think their pop guns will help in that event. It's practically disillusional.

(At least some of) the people who think they need guns also think they can take on the US armed forces. Why would we listen to someone who actually believes that?

 

As you say, there is a well organised militia- better than the founding fathers could have dreamed of, (I oversimplified it a bit when I said the police) so there's no reason for each citizen to be armed. The death toll is a clear reason not to have everyone armed.

 

 

And I'd still like to know what the death spell is.

It doesn't any more.

 

 

And, if the constitution is changed to restrict gun ownership will you say "It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact. People have the no right to keep and bear arms in the US. Any politician who represents the stance that Constitutional rights are just somebody's point of view is going to lose my vote. See how that works? "?

 

Imaging going back a little while and applying that same assertion to both sides of the debate about prohibition of alcohol.

See how much sense it makes.

Edited July 14, 2015 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

"Take it out of the equation because a large federal power oppressing state and local powers is one of the stated concerns of many gun advocates. "

Can we put it back on exactly that basis please?.

 

One of the points I was making is that the gun advocates think their pop guns will help in that event. It's practically disillusional.

(At least some of) the people who think they need guns also think they can take on the US armed forces. Why would we listen to someone who actually believes that?

I am not one of those who think we need guns to take on our own government, but I don't think you are fully taking into consideration how a fight against the government would work.

History is full of examples of local populations doing quite well against militarily superior forces. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are recent examples. Were the US government to use nuclear weapons the story would be different, but that is not a likely scenario against its own population. The US government even backs down against the threat of violence from even a few of its citizens (see Cliven Bundy).

For how long did the Brits fight the Irish, or many of the countries in its former empire?

In all out war, the US would likely beat its population into submission in short order, but all out war is unlikely.

[overtone]

On a related note, you may have missed this, but your police forces are armed and are actually well regulated and subject to locally elected control; they are your militia.

No. Christ no. Police forces are uniformed and paid employees of the government, whose weapons and other gear are provided by said government, whose duties and command officers are provided by the government, who have permanent status and jobs defined by the government. They are a standing force, a professional force, and a civilian force. They enforce the law, not break it. They are almost the opposite of a militia.

 

 

 

 

And, if the constitution is changed to restrict gun ownership will you say "It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact.

Of course. What is confusing to you about this?

 

 

 

 

OK, what do I need to say to get someone killed?

What's the magic "death spell" that I need to speak to bring about someone's demise?

Now what. Babble.

If your bafflement is about how allowing various bad guys free speech can get people killed, review the history of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", "The Birth of a Nation", "Mein Kampf", The "Bible" or the "Koran" or the "Book of Mormon", the speeches of Malcolm X, the radio diatribes of Rush Limbaugh, etc etc etc. The consequences of free speech, including deaths etc, are often used as justification for disallowing it.

 

Imaging going back a little while and applying that same assertion to both sides of the debate about prohibition of alcohol.

See how much sense it makes.

It makes perfect sense. Constitutional rights are as written (not forgetting the 10th Amendment). What is your difficulty with this concept?

 

In all out war, the US would likely beat its population into submission in short order, but all out war is unlikely.

The standard, normal imposition of oppression is via local paramilitary forces and anonymous terrorism - the KKK in America, the death squads in Guatemala and Honduras et al, the Tonton Macoutes in Haiti. The writers of the US Constitution were familiar with that aspect of tyranny.

 

When the constitution was written states did not have contiously manned and armed national guards, aka state militias, and armed police forces did not exist. Impossible to say for sure how a regulated militia would be interrupted under these different conditions.

1) National Guards are not militias. They are nothing like militias. They are not even close. 2) Entertaining as they may be, speculations as to how the Founders would react to a world in which their cherished democracy has - against their deep fears and explicit objections - a standing Federal army, each State equipped with a standing National Guard, and a heavily armed Federal police force,

are science fiction and fantasy plots.

Edited July 15, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

There are lots of wars where the "little" side won.

Can you name any where the war was not at a distance from the "big" side?

Vietnam, for example, is a long way from the US.

 

The point being that the "little guys" had the home advantage.

[Ten oz]

No. Christ no. Police forces are uniformed and paid employees of the government, whose weapons and other gear are provided by said government, whose duties and command officers are provided by the government, who have permanent status and jobs defined by the government. They are a standing force, a professional force, and a civilian force. They enforce the law, not break it. They are almost the opposite of a militia.

 

 

 

 

Of course. What is confusing to you about this?

 

 

 

 

Now what. Babble.

If your bafflement is about how allowing various bad guys free speech can get people killed, review the history of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", "The Birth of a Nation", "Mein Kampf", The "Bible" or the "Koran" or the "Book of Mormon", the speeches of Malcolm X, the radio diatribes of Rush Limbaugh, etc etc etc. The consequences of free speech, including deaths etc, are often used as justification for disallowing it.

 

It makes perfect sense. Constitutional rights are as written (not forgetting the 10th Amendment). What is your difficulty with this concept?

 

The standard, normal imposition of oppression is via local paramilitary forces and anonymous terrorism - the KKK in America, the death squads in Guatemala and Honduras et al, the Tonton Macoutes in Haiti. The writers of the US Constitution were familiar with that aspect of tyranny.

 

1) National Guards are not militias. They are nothing like militias. They are not even close. 2) Entertaining as they may be, speculations as to how the Founders would react to a world in which their cherished democracy has - against their deep fears and explicit objections - a standing Federal army, each State equipped with a standing National Guard, and a heavily armed Federal police force,

are science fiction and fantasy plots.

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.^[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

• The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.^[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia^[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
• Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

[zapatos]

There are lots of wars where the "little" side won.

Can you name any where the war was not at a distance from the "big" side?

Vietnam, for example, is a long way from the US.

 

The point being that the "little guys" had the home advantage.

French Revolution

Cuba

China

Edited July 15, 2015 by zapatos

[waitforufo]

Ireland Revolution

Edited July 16, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Stepping outside the constitutionality question for a moment, how do folks think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment if they had a detailed knowledge of today's weapons and military technology, deep understanding and appreciation for the types and frequencies of crime we see, and clear unclouded visibility into the fact that every single day 20 children are hospitalized in the U.S. due to guns and every single day 6% of those children die or if they'd known that every single year during the past decade there have been 30 mass killings with 137 victims... thus forever subtracting the entirety of their potential and leaving behind thousands of grieving families who will mourn and ache at their loss in perpetuity?

 

If it were being drafted today with the above stipulations accepted, how do you think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment?

Bump.

[dimreepr]

Cognitive dissonance seems to be playing a major part in this question.

[John Cuthber]

" And, if the constitution is changed to restrict gun ownership will you say "It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact."

 

Of course. What is confusing to you about this?

 

You missed a bit; what I said was

And, if the constitution is changed to restrict gun ownership will you say "It's not a "view". It's a Constitutional damn fact. People have the no right to keep and bear arms in the US. Any politician who represents the stance that Constitutional rights are just somebody's point of view is going to lose my vote. See how that works? "?

 

 

So without the silly attempt to alter the meaning, perhaps you could answer the question.

Will you still say that?

 

Also, my point wasn't babble- it's just that you ignored the point of it again so here it is again.

"You say "But people have died as a consequence of the exercise of those rights,"

OK, what do I need to say to get someone killed?

What's the magic "death spell" that I need to speak to bring about someone's demise?"

If you answered questions promptly and without distorting them it would make things quicker. It may also avoid having people think you are ignoring issues because you can't answer them.

Edited July 16, 2015 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

Cognitive dissonance seems to be playing a major part in this question.

 

 

Protection from the wacko’s with easy access to guns is easier access to bigger guns.

[imatfaal]

To refocus on the issue of child death (rather than solely the constitutional right to bear arms)

 

• Name: unreleased Age: 11 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed
• Name: Madeline Recktenwald Age: 7 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Female Status: Killed
• Name: unreleased Age: 3 Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed
• Name: Lily Coats-Nichols Age: 5 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Female Status: Killed
• Name: Amari Brown Age: 7 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed
• Name: Luis F. Lopez-Cruz Age: 3 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed
• Name: Chris L. Palmer Age: 4 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed
• Name: unreleased Age: 11 Age Group: Child 0-11 Gender: Male Status: Killed

This month so far. Tragically even for this 16 days that have already passed the numbers will rise as many reports are not yet in, injuries prove fatal, and the data is not yet fully collated.

 

Thank heavens it is a lower than average but it will get closer and if you look back through the reports the last two weeks have been relatively peaceful; just two 3y-olds, a 4y-old and a 5y-old, two 7y-olds, and two 11y-olds - a quiet two weeks...