Some facts about guns in the US

[Write4U]

only since june of 2008.

I don't know what law you are referring to but

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

However, I am sure that 2+ CENTURIES ago the authors of the Second Amendment had no idea of modern warfare and the highly sophisticated weapons that have been invented since that "article" was written. Thus it is entirely reasonable to regulate and if necessary restrict the sale and use of certain military weapons which in the hands of "bad" guys can lead to mass killings, a fact which is obvious today but did not exist in the days of single shot black powder rifles.

I find it entirely logical that, in view of the fire power of gangs have created the perceived need by police to arm themselves with weapons of equal or greater power. I am not in favor of this entire trend, but as long as criminals can have easy access to "specialized weapons of war" with 30 round clips, law enforcement will feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on heavy armaments.

IMO, the only way to reduce this weapons race between criminals and law enforcement is to restrict "availability" of military type weapons. The public has plenty choice left of selecting appropriate weapons for sport or hunting.

IMO, the need for regulation of certain weapons is needed. I live in No Idaho and everyone I know goes hunting for winter meat, but no one I know uses military type guns, which would not bring down a big Elk or Moose or, if necessary a Grizzly bear, unless 3 or 4 guys pump 100 bullets in such "big game".

But we also have a large number of "survivalist" and "neo-nazis", who are counting on a type of Armageddon and are intentionally stocking armaments for an invasion of foreign armies, or even in the hope of one day gaining enough military power to overthrow the government.
This worries me a great deal.

Where does the Second Amendment stop? I am willing to speculate that if the authors had any idea what those simple words "right to bear arms" would, two centuries later, be interpreted that anyone can buy any weapon they like from any gunstore or gun-show. I am certain that was not the intent of the Second Amendment, which does qualify the right to bear arms with the second sentence "a well regulated militia" being necessary. IMO there have to be regulations and restrictions placed on certain weapons, which have no other use than mass killing.

 

[Bells]

Where does the Second Amendment stop? I am willing to speculate that if the authors had any idea what those simple words "right to bear arms" would, two centuries later, be interpreted that anyone can buy any weapon they like from any gunstore or gun-show. I am certain that was not the intent of the Second Amendment, which does qualify the right to bear arms with the second sentence "a well regulated militia" being necessary. IMO there have to be regulations and restrictions placed on certain weapons, which have no other use than mass killing.

Your post pretty much sums it up. Particularly the last paragraph.

Well said!

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

But enforcing, and where necessary still making, laws establishing accountability for violent or irresponsible behavior does address an important aspect of the core problem, which is lack of accountability for violent and irresponsible behavior with guns.
If you read my posts above, and throughout, you would know the answer to that one

And if you had been reading my posts with anything like comprehension, you would also note that I happen to agree with your above statement.

It just so happens that we have some great laws that will work if given the chance... but we have soft prosecutors who claim "accident" (specifically referring to the father shooting his son that Tiassa posted).

But instead, you want to make unsubstantiated claims like below (are you trying to start a flame war, or just trying to piss me off specifically?)

If you read my posts above, and throughout, you would know the answer to that one - I recommend waiting a few years, until the adults can get a word in edgewise, and these adults sitting down and devising a strategy for enforcing the laws we have now and the couple of new ones we need to fill in the gaps. We have to wait, because right now the gun vote has filled the air with rants and the legislatures with non-adults, (and the anti-gun vote has filled the air with threats and even elected a few nannies, although less of an obstacle).

You know nothing about me and you obviously haven't been reading what I have posted, and you probably have me mistaken with someone

how very mature.

with that chip on your shoulder and your nose shoved into the air, we are going to get nowhere.

But then again, inflaming the argument seems to be your intent. Is it?
is it to put all those pro-gun people in their place?
is that what you are trying to do right now?

I know you haven't been reading my posts with anything like comprehension, (you've been mistaking me for someone who wants to see government-enforced reductions in gun ownership and numbers, for example),

and, of course, you can provide proof that I think this way?
you can show where I posted this and assumed this was you?

Please provide my comment that inferred this... thank you

once you provide that comment, then we can work towards correcting the problem or even apologizing if I worded something that was incorrect, or inferred something incorrectly about you.

and you have been handing me the same bs excuses for voting for fuckwits that I get every election season from the gun vote guys around me, and I never blamed you for the death of single payer health care in my State - I blamed the gun vote in my State, and quite accurately btw (I was there, following the various key election returns). I do know what the gun vote guys have accomplished - are you objecting to being included in that category?

and again... you are going to lump me in with the "fuckwit" category because I don't agree with everything you say.
(I happen to agree with a lot of what you say)
wow.
thanks for pointing that out...

I believe there is a core problem that should be addressed.
Violence and irresponsible behavior (including yours).

That means prosecuting people who "accidentally shoot their son because the gun was unloaded".
there is NO SUCH THING AS AN UNLOADED WEAPON. I have said it before, I will say it again...

and now you are saying that this is the wrong attitude? that I am a "fuckwit"? what then does that make you as the opposition?

and no, you didn't specifically blame me for "the death of single payer health care" in your State but you are lumping me in with those people without knowing anything about me.
that is personal conjecture based upon a delusion

unless, of course, you have my voting record. that i would like to see... by all means, please produce it

And since we can't do anything about violent and irresponsible behavior in any way, especially not by holding any gun owners accountable for their violent or irresponsiible behavior with guns,

and you are wrong about this.
we CAN hold them responsible, and I have tried everything in my power in the past to make sure they were held accountable for their actions.
much like the situation with that father shooting his son, I would have prosecuted were I given the option... but I wasn't.
Likely the prosecutor didn't push it because of the sympathy vote from the jury.
but that doesn't change my opinion. nor does it change the law.
he should have been prosecuted. he wasn't.

it was not my fault
quit blaming me for your frustrations and inadequacies

once you have identified the problem as that one you need do nothing more, especially not engage in political cooperation with reasonable adults who are trying to do that. For example: You have fulfilled your responsibility here as a gun owning adult by pointing out that current gun laws are not well enforced - cooperating with anti-gun folks to get them better enforced is of course impossible for you.

and again, you make unsubstantiated conjecture while trying to defend your self perceived superiority.

put away your righteous indignation and re-read my posts. tell me where I said this was all I will do, or have done, or am doing.
by all means, please... show me where I wrote that.

thanks... I can wait....

while you are at it... quit trying to blame me for your inabilities or laziness. You want to make a change, then get out there and do something.
You have made the comment

I blamed the gun vote in my State, and quite accurately btw (I was there, following the various key election returns). I do know what the gun vote guys have accomplished - are you objecting to being included in that category?

but you have no idea how i voted.
if you have my voting record, please produce it so everyone can see it...
while you are at it, please also produce any and all campaign letters I have sent to my elected officials.

I am active with things I think are important.



Oh... and if all you are going to do is sit there and play the "i am going to try to piss this person off so i feel justified lumping everyone under the pro-gun nutjobs are fuckwits and violent" category, please let me know so that I don't waste any more time



EDIT:
I don't know where i caught your attention and what burr you have under your saddle, but I've been going through the posts and we seem to be having a problem that is not a problem

You seem to be attributing behavior to me that is not mine
Please point out where things went awry and lets get this sorted.
I happen to agree with a lot of what you have said, and I don't know where this is gone awry and why you've taken exception me

If I said something wrong, I will man up and apologize.
Was it because I would never try to defend myself against bears with bricks? what?
I really think you have me mixed up with someone else

but lets get the air cleared

 

[Bells]

How about you take a chillpill..

Let's wind back the anger a bit..

 

[Captain Kremmen]

And so do you.

Well done, Captain! :bravo:

I didn't do much, really.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't know what law you are referring to but

However, I am sure that 2+ CENTURIES ago the authors of the Second Amendment had no idea of modern warfare and the highly sophisticated weapons that have been invented since that "article" was written. Thus it is entirely reasonable to regulate and if necessary restrict the sale and use of certain military weapons which in the hands of "bad" guys can lead to mass killings, a fact which is obvious today but did not exist in the days of single shot black powder rifles.

I find it entirely logical that, in view of the fire power of gangs have created the perceived need by police to arm themselves with weapons of equal or greater power. I am not in favor of this entire trend, but as long as criminals can have easy access to "specialized weapons of war" with 30 round clips, law enforcement will feel compelled to spend tax payer dollars on heavy armaments.

IMO, the only way to reduce this weapons race between criminals and law enforcement is to restrict "availability" of military type weapons. The public has plenty choice left of selecting appropriate weapons for sport or hunting.

Yes and no.

Coming from a nation without a Second Amendment, it still strikes me that the object of the right to bear arms is to protect the citizenry from official, unfair repression. And, having come from such a country - and cognisant of the anxious contrast this seems to strike in my heart - it still strikes me as a good idea overall. Governments are not perfect instruments of the will of the proletariat and even where they are their actions may be immoral, prejudiced or evil (Iran, Pakistan, Chile under Pinochet, etc). So setting aside all issues of popularity, it is not a bad concept - and for Americans, it must be integral, since the existence of such militias served for the creation of their country. As a citizen of the Empire (=D), perhaps that is where the reluctance exists? some societal memory of the estranged colony? Probably not, but it is amusing to consider.

Now, as such: placing our conception of the right to bear arms as being limited to muskets is to do the concept a disservice in the argument. Yes, modern weapons are much more - 'effective', shall we say. But muskets were the height of industrial military development of their time: the British had muskets, and the Americans did likewise. Granted, crew-served weapons such as cannon were more available to the British, but it is proper to say that the Americans had access to the same personal firepower that the British did, differing largely in usage and tactics (the one advantage of an insurgent army).

Today, if the spirit of the Second Amendment is to be served - and there are disturbing shadows creeping out of Washington, from drone strikes to black microwave towers and maybe offshore data centres - does not the American populace need to have some kind of access to weapons of similar sort to those being used by the officials of their government? I would disagree prima facie with the conclusion of the Supreme Court that this permission extended to individuals, if not for the fact that the American Revolution itself began with individuals, who then went on to form such militias. But then again, it was illegal for them to have those weapons also, wasn't it?

 

[Bells]

Evolution at its best..

In July, Idaho became the seventh state to allow students and faculty with enhanced concealed carry licenses—held by some 3,000 residents who have gone through extra training—and certain retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons on public college campuses. Idaho followed Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin in enacting similar measures. The five states that proposed legislation prohibiting campus carry in 2013 were unsuccessful, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.​

The specter of arming teachers and even students, in the case of universities, is not a pleasant one. The very notion of people in schools fill with children or young people, along with all the daily stresses such jobs entail, would not bring me comfort...

While the NRA and their supporters pushed for more guns in schools in the wake of the numerous school shootings, they may have shot themselves in the foot (you will see the pun in a second).. They argued that teachers being armed made students and schools safer. People are meant to be protected from harm.

And some took to it with gusto. Like one professor from Idaho..

Just into the second week of fall classes, a Idaho State University professor has literally shot himself in the foot and provided one answer to the question of “What could go wrong?” on the growing number of college campuses that allow the concealed carry of firearms.

The unnamed professor was teaching a class of roughly 20 students at the Physical Science building yesterday when his handgun—pocketed, but not holstered—accidentally discharged, Lieutenant Paul Manning of the Pocatello Police Department told The Daily Beast.​

Apparently the gun went off in the middle of class..

Yes.. People will want these responsible individuals being armed with guns in the same room as their children...

 

[Dr_Toad]

He is an idiot. Pocketed, not holstered, with a round chambered? Pull his license.

The thing is, you never hear about thousands of people who have CHLs who don't screw up...

 

[GeoffP]

What is the rate of the screwing up, or of accidental homicides, compared to gun owners and CHL permit carriers?

 

[Kittamaru]

Bells - I have to second Dr_Toad on that...in his pocket, with a round chambered, presumably without the safety engaged... that guy is an idiot and deserves to have his license pulled and his weapons confiscated.

 

[sculptor]

What is the rate of the screwing up, or of accidental homicides, compared to gun owners and CHL permit carriers?

(rounding it off)

@310,000,000 firearms in the us
@14,000 -19,000 accidental shootings per year(say 16,500 average)
roughly: .0001% chance of having an accidental shooting
or
about one accidental shooting for each @19,000 weapons
.................................
yer rite toad, guy's an idiot----foot---not a bad outcome? (see below)
.................

I've a cousin who has a biker friend who carried a stiletto knife(the kind where the blade shoots straight out) in his front jeans pocket.
One fine day, he crashed the bike into a ditch. During the bouncing the stiletto's blade shot out. The damned fool stabbed himself in the dick.
I'd have paid a buck to be a fly on the wall when he checked into the emergency room(musta been a hoot).

 

[billvon]

Quite possibly, yes. Since we will show up, do the work, and so forth. And people like you won't even follow the discussion. And when after reading my post, you think I was referring to my "opponents" by that phrase, you are (once again, in your case) simply making a mistake.

You were referring to the politicians who represent the position you oppose, who those "doorknobs" elected.

And again, if you want to call them "ignorant, corrupt, incompetent , bigoted, disastrously blithering fuckwits" that's fine, which is what's happening now. One side is "cowardly, ignorant gun-o-phobes" and the other are "bloodthirsty, trigger-happy dolts who live in fear, clutching their guns." If that's the level of discussion you are capable of, then that's what you will get. In order to not be seen as a hypocrite, though, you then have to accept when they call you similar names.

Hopefully the adults will carry the day, rather than the children prone to such tantrums.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The unnamed professor was teaching a class of roughly 20 students at the Physical Science building yesterday when his handgun—pocketed, but not holstered—accidentally discharged, Lieutenant Paul Manning of the Pocatello Police Department told The Daily Beast....

Yes.. People will want these responsible individuals being armed with guns in the same room as their children...

He is an idiot. Pocketed, not holstered, with a round chambered? Pull his license.
The thing is, you never hear about thousands of people who have CHLs who don't screw up...

Bells - I have to second Dr_Toad on that...in his pocket, with a round chambered, presumably without the safety engaged... that guy is an idiot and deserves to have his license pulled and his weapons confiscated.

definitely an idiot

and should have his CCL revoked and weapon removed

EDIT:

(rounding it off)

@310,000,000 firearms in the us
@14,000 -19,000 accidental shootings per year(say 16,500 average)
roughly: .0001% chance of having an accidental shooting
or
about one accidental shooting for each @19,000 weapons
.................................
yer rite toad, guy's an idiot----foot---not a bad outcome? (see below)
.................

I've a cousin who has a biker friend who carried a stiletto knife(the kind where the blade shoots straight out) in his front jeans pocket.
One fine day, he crashed the bike into a ditch. During the bouncing the stiletto's blade shot out. The damned fool stabbed himself in the dick.
I'd have paid a buck to be a fly on the wall when he checked into the emergency room(musta been a hoot).

Wow...
Yall don't call him "Blade" for a nickname by any chance, do you?

 

[iceaura]

and again... you are going to lump me in with the "fuckwit" category because I don't agree with everything you say.

No. I lumped you in with the "provides bs excuses for voting for fuckwits" category, because you did just that - provided a couple of the typical bs excuses for voting for fuckwits that it has been my privilege to listen to every single solitary god blessed electoral season on every job and in every bar conversation in which the subject comes up.

Those are the excuses we get from the gun vote crowd to justify their key role in the election and re-election of Reagan, W&Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, John Kline, Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman, Chip Cravaack, ad nausdeum, and I'm just staying local Minnesota - votes and voters I know personally, gun voter influence I know to have been significant in the results. It seems to be even worse elsewhere.

The fact that the people handing me these excuses, the gun voters that have so damaged American politics these past thirty or forty years, usually have much common cause with the crowd they think they are voting against (which in its own reality fringe probably would be just as damaging if they had as much specific support and effect, but they don't) is why I think we're stuck, for the time being. If thirty years of common cause has culminated in gridlock like this, let it be for a while. Yanking on this shoelace will not untie it.

And an example:

He is an idiot. Pocketed, not holstered, with a round chambered? Pull his license.
- - -
.in his pocket, with a round chambered, presumably without the safety engaged... that guy is an idiot and deserves to have his license pulled and his weapons confiscated.

So if the gun control people want to include that in the law - no round in the chamber unless target present, on penalty of fine, possible jail, and confiscation of all weaponry - we have consensus: sure.

Now, as such: placing our conception of the right to bear arms as being limited to muskets is to do the concept a disservice in the argument. Yes, modern weapons are much more - 'effective', shall we say. But muskets were the height of industrial military development of their time: the British had muskets, and the Americans did likewise. Granted, crew-served weapons such as cannon were more available to the British, but it is proper to say that the Americans had access to the same personal firepower that the British did, differing largely in usage and tactics (the one advantage of an insurgent army).

The American militia often had, in addition and significantly, the locally invented "long rifle". This was a superior weapon in frontier warfare, being more reliable, more durable, more accurate, and longer ranged - as well as more economical with powder and shot - than any army musket, and was one of the early examples of what has become almost an identification or core feature of American culture: technical innovation in military gear, the best weaponry and military equipment in the world. (We also deployed the most lethal warships of the time - a couple of frigates so designed and built that they could match cannon with a comparatively sluggish British man-o-war - and so forth).

That's what the 2nd Amendment was referring to, as militia arms - the most lethal hand weapons on the planet.

You were referring to the politicians who represent the position you oppose

No, I wasn't. I was referring to the politicians elected by the gun vote. What they "represent" is an entirely different matter, that does not enter here. Those politicians are not my "opponents" in a discussion of gun control.

As far as matching my level of discussion, you can try describing any politicians you think were elected by the anti-gun crowd's specific influence in similar terms - you will find naming specific examples considerably more difficult, I predict, and you will also be contributing support to my contention throughput this thread (my entire argument here) that we are in temporarily inescapable gridlock for no good reason - but then reality is not the issue with you here - is it. This is

If that's the level of discussion you are capable of, then that's what you will get.

That's apparently the only "level of discussion" the gridlocked are capable of perceiving - to the point that they will invent and project it, as seen in multiple otherwise puzzling misreadings of my posts above (they're just not that obscure, that two or three failed attempts to comprehend them are explicable by their syntax or grammatical complexity). That's where we sit.

 

[Kittamaru]

And an example: So if the gun control people want to include that in the law - no round in the chamber unless target present, on penalty of fine, possible jail, and confiscation of all weaponry - we have consensus: sure.

Great idea, but unenforceable - how do you know for certain if someone is carrying their gun with a round chambered? Do you stop everyone you see with a gun and inspect it? What about revolvers?

It isn't something that needs to be law... it's something that is common sense... the problem isn't the regulation or the firearm... the problem is the people. People, in general, seem to be getting dumber and dumber by the decade... common sense has gone by the wayside.

Think about it - even fifty years ago, did you EVER see someone hold a firearm like this:

Or how about this gem...

No... the problem isn't the gun... the problem is the people.

 

[kx000]

If we get rid of guns there are still pointy rocks, and plenty of the bad things. We have to love, and do a lot of thinking and make some important realizations. Guns aren't going to make us love. We can protect ourselves, and be safe but we won't love the anger or any of the transgressions it takes to fire that weapon.

Love and knowledge

 

[billvon]

. . . my contention throughput this thread (my entire argument here) that we are in temporarily inescapable gridlock for no good reason.

Well, there is a reason (not a good one, but a reason) - and that is the rancor and disrespect shown by both sides in this debate. I know a lot of people who are anti-gun, and a lot of people who are pro-gun - and very few of them meet the descriptions used in this thread.

So if you want to have a higher level discussion, great - that's the sort of discussion that will solve problems. If you want to call people names, that's fine too - but you are then part of the problem that you complain about.

 

[Motor Daddy]

People still complaining about guns that kill people, but still not a word about pools being outlawed because they kill people. (confudle'd)

http://abc11.com/news/baby-found-unconscious-in-swimming-pool-dies/286787/

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No. I lumped you in with the "provides bs excuses for voting for fuckwits" category, because you did just that - provided a couple of the typical bs excuses for voting for fuckwits that it has been my privilege to listen to every single solitary god blessed electoral season on every job and in every bar conversation in which the subject comes up.

Those are the excuses we get from the gun vote crowd to justify their key role in the election and re-election of Reagan, W&Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, John Kline, Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman, Chip Cravaack, ad nausdeum, and I'm just staying local Minnesota - votes and voters I know personally, gun voter influence I know to have been significant in the results. It seems to be even worse elsewhere.

The fact that the people handing me these excuses, the gun voters that have so damaged American politics these past thirty or forty years, usually have much common cause with the crowd they think they are voting against (which in its own reality fringe probably would be just as damaging if they had as much specific support and effect, but they don't) is why I think we're stuck, for the time being. If thirty years of common cause has culminated in gridlock like this, let it be for a while. Yanking on this shoelace will not untie it.

ok, so you are pissed off based upon my political beliefs?
Which was the defining moment?
My experience which tells me that two bricks is not going to do anything to a pissed of bear or wild boar? Because that is how it is looking here to me...
I aint from Minnesota nor am I some uneducated backwoods hick vying for attention and popularity here.
personally, I don't care if I am popular. I ask only because it seems to me to have snowballed after that bear/brick discussion and you seem to have suddenly had an unhealthy obsession with my comments.

and blaming me for your ineffectual movement or abilities politically is kind of reaching, isn't it? I rather think I am making sense, and I really am trying to comprehend other points of view (except the acerbic troll comments that are only trying to piss people off... that is another study entirely)

Now... I can agree with well written laws that are effective. We actually have a lot of them. We also don't fully enforce the ones we have. so why make more ineffective laws or laws that would violate everyone's rights (like making it a law that you can't carry one in the pipe and then stuff a gun in your drawers like some wanna-be gang-banger). This is a common sense issue and one of personal responsibility (and safety). Let the idiots get their Darwin award and move on. problem solved.

or is the real problem with my pointing out that the core problem seems to never get addressed?
is that the part you don't like?
because I have lived in neighborhoods that you would be afraid to be within a mile of without armored vehicles and SWAT teams on standby?

it is true. it never does get addressed. it gets shuffled to the side while everyone rants about gun control.

Let a shooting happen at a white suburban school that is the very image of quiet middle class America or some upper class school get shot up, or a shooting that seems racially motivated (or at least is between two races and someone gets footage of it) and the world gets crazy with gun control...

how many world news headlines are you seeing about the constant child/youth killings (intentional or accidental) in Chicago slums?
How about in LA Gangland?
South Miami?
Pine Ridge? or any poverty stricken reservation for that matter? (it happens more than you know, just like Chicago, LA, Miami, etc)


is that what you are pissed about? because I think we should actually enforce the laws we HAVE as well as try to sort out the core problems?

if that is the problem, then I don't know what to tell you. really.. I don't
you can have 100 laws on the books... but that doesn't mean any of them will be enforced. Like Cohabitation in Florida which is technically illegal but usually only enforced when parties involved get pissed at each other or there is a rape/assault/battery problem which the law can be compounded onto it

http://rubinontax.floridatax.com/2007/08/enforceability-of-cohabitation.html

what may come as a surprise to many is that cohabitation between unmarried persons, if there is a sexual relationship involved, is illegal in the State of Florida. More particularly, Florida Statutes Section 798.02 provides: "If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree…"

making nonsense unenforceable laws is stupid and a waste of everyone's time. Especially if they will not affect the problems that you want to address

I would rather see two effective laws that can and WILL be enforced make it into circulation that the overwhelming majority of ineffective unsupportable laws that keep cropping up and rotating through the system (like below).

And I will not apologize for wanting to address the core problems either. Too many people already ignore the problems that infest our poverty stricken areas (any time that the US has parts of its nation that is still considered third world at best, with no running water, no jobs, no hope of jobs or even of self promotion into a better lifestyle then there is a serious underlying problem not being addressed)

And an example: So if the gun control people want to include that in the law - no round in the chamber unless target present, on penalty of fine, possible jail, and confiscation of all weaponry - we have consensus: sure.

Well, I would like to piggyback on what Kittamaru said. He was more eloquent.

There is no need for a law that will be useless.
You can pass it, but it will only make you feel better... If someone is going to be willing to ignore personal injury, removal of the ability to procreate and death for absolutely no reason other than constant really bad music video's and re-runs of Colors (with Penn and Duvall) or Boyz in the Hood, then it is not likely that they will consider obeying a law that supports said safety violation.

can you imagine the whole new image that rap music will have then?
(actually, that is kinda funny to me)

the law will fall upon deaf ears no matter how well intentioned. There is no real way to enforce it either, unless you make it mandatory that all people give up any privacy and are given forced body searches. (and i am sure that will never be abused like the screenings at airports, right?)

What would happen, if this law were to be passed, would be pretty much the same thing as certain sex laws like anal penetration: enforced when caught in another act and used to make sure a criminal gets more time added because of an easily proved violation that will stand up to court scrutiny.

 

[iceaura]

Great idea, but unenforceable - how do you know for certain if someone is carrying their gun with a round chambered? Do you stop everyone you see with a gun and inspect it? What about revolvers?

It isn't something that needs to be law... it's something that is common sense.

It needs to be law, so that gun owners are accountable for accidents and mishandlings - regardless of consequences. Of course, like the laws against any number of things, there are limits on means of enforcement - but there is accountability for mishap, accident, irresponsibility that affects other people. The community needs this, and it affects the responsible gun owner not one whit.

It's one of several laws that would bring much needed accountability to gun ownership without the slightest danger to anyone's civil rights. It's part of the consensus, that sits waiting for reasonable adults to enact it.

I know a lot of people who are anti-gun, and a lot of people who are pro-gun - and very few of them meet the descriptions used in this thread.

You live in the US? Almost all the pro and anti folks in the US meet the descriptions in this thread, and many resemble the people in this thread. We are quite normal.

You just haven't bothered to recognize and respect the descriptions used in this thread, preferring insult and dishonest misreading to discussion. Like this:

So if you want to have a higher level discussion, great - that's the sort of discussion that will solve problems. If you want to call people names, that's fine too - but you are then part of the problem that you complain about.

High level discussion involving me and you would begin with an apology from you for the misreadings and gratuitous insults, and an avoidance by you of similar behavior in the future. What are the odds?

Meanwhile: gridlock. So: patience.