Shooting discussion devolves

[Connor MacLeod]

You lambast me as ignorant. I, at least, care for the 20 dead children. I care about them more than guns. But I will leave for now.

The reason people react to you the way you do is the way you approach posting on this forum and debating in general, and its something I've noticed consistently. I'm not sure I can find the right kind of word to describe it (maybe someone else can) but the best I can come up with is... tryhard. Its like you're trying to measure yourself up to some sort of arbitrary standard noone else but you can see or believes exists, and its really just making your posting feel stilted and artificial.

But that's just me and I find I've become something of an optimist in my approach to these forums. If you keep up this way after having it pointed out, you deserve to be lambasted.

Edit: Case in point This. It comes across as so.. fuck I dont know.. overly dramatic and alarmist and whatnot. Do you really feel a need to post like that, or something?

I mean he doesn't really remind me of Colfax (or at least insasmuch as I remember him) as that space marine guy. He just feels way too.. I dunno serious about this board and whats posted on it.

[CaptHawkeye]

Colfax was before my time. Him being this dim would certainly explain why he got banned. But apparently 'Falcon' has been on the site for about a year and a half- Colfax went through a sockpuppet or two in that time, didn't he? That's what Parting Shots says.

Yeah but Falcon didn't start posting until 2-3 months after Colfax's most recent sockpuppet was banned. Despite being registered long before then.

[xt828]

I'm not quite sure if I understood it when raised earlier, so could I ask to clarify what the current requirements are, broadly, in terms of storage of firearms and ammunition?

[weemadando]

How do you make sure that a shooting discussion devolves? Get the NRA involved:

"This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking any questions."

“We have blood-soaked films out there, like ‘American Psycho,’ ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on splatter days.”

“I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed officers in every single school in this nation.”

“With all the foreign aid the United State does…can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?” (NYT estimated this cost to be minimum 6.4bn)

“And throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.” (You know, as opposed the the gun companies who somehow manage to avoid being part of this discussion

"An active national database of the mentally ill."

BECAUSE REGISTERING GUNS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON YOUR LIBERTY, BUT FORCING ANYONE WHO'S EVER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS ONTO A REGISTER IS FINE.

This is why "we terrible leftie prohibitionists" hate the NRA. Because they're idiots.

[Aaron MkII]

I'm not quite sure if I understood it when raised earlier, so could I ask to clarify what the current requirements are, broadly, in terms of storage of firearms and ammunition?

I doubt the US has a single standard, everything seems to be done at the state level.

[Stark]

I am only willing to compromise on sensible gun restrictions if I feel that the other side is also negotiating in good faith. My response serves the functional purpose of saying, "if you're not open to compromise, I'm not open to compromise either". Either gun control advocates admit that Americans have an absolute right to keep a firearm for defense of their home, or we concede nothing.

I wasn't even talking to you, but this response is just pure gold. The only 'absolute' is that people like you (on both sides of this asinine debate) get people killed. Everything else is just people like you being a wanker.

[Lonestar]

I'm not quite sure if I understood it when raised earlier, so could I ask to clarify what the current requirements are, broadly, in terms of storage of firearms and ammunition?

There aren't any at the federal level.


In fact, it's been ruled by SCOTUS that you can't mandate it at a lower jurisdiction either.

That said, it is possible to mandate this if it has to meet terms of parole or probation. So, if Jim-Bob is on parole or probation and living at home with his parents, the court can tell the parents that they have to prove to the courts satisfaction that the firearms have been secured so Jim-Bob isn't violating his parole or probation. This might mean storing them at a locker at the range, or locking them in a safe* that Jim-bob doesn't know what the combo is.




*a locked gun cabinet is not a safe

[GuppyShark]

In fact, it's been ruled by SCOTUS that you can't mandate it at a lower jurisdiction either.

I'm not sure how having to put your gun in a safe instead of leaving it on the kitchen table prevents you from resisting the redcoats but okay....

I tried reading the Wiki description of the ruling and it was so confusing and seemingly self-contradictory that I gave up. This is a long shot, but has anyone found an explanation includes the context of the rulings if you haven't got an established understanding of the history of US gun control legislation?

[Simon_Jester]

In fact, it's been ruled by SCOTUS that you can't mandate it at a lower jurisdiction either.

I'm not sure how having to put your gun in a safe instead of leaving it on the kitchen table prevents you from resisting the redcoats but okay....

Heller didn't deal with a requirement for guns in safes, it required them to be physically disabled from working unless you reassembled them or something like that. Which does make the gun a lot less useful for defending your home, which by custom is one of the constitutional reasons people can have guns.

Likewise it overturned a categorical ban on pistols (a major class of firearms people use heavily for lawful purposes).

One argument against a safe requirement MIGHT be raised: it means you aren't allowed to own guns unless you can afford a safe. Gun safes cost hundreds of dollars. Then again, so do the guns themselves, so I don't know that this would play a big role in court decisions.

[Sea Skimmer]

“With all the foreign aid the United State does…can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?” (NYT estimated this cost to be minimum 6.4bn)

You could most likely cut that cost in half by eliminating a similar number of existing security guards making lower wages. About 100,000 people would be needed for this, sounds like NYT assumed a 64,000 dollar a year salary which is average enough for a cop + healthcare cost. Now meanwhile meanwhile Homeland Security costs 60 billion and year... anyone think the US will fall into the ocean if that was reduced 10%?

[Sea Skimmer]

One argument against a safe requirement MIGHT be raised: it means you aren't allowed to own guns unless you can afford a safe. Gun safes cost hundreds of dollars. Then again, so do the guns themselves, so I don't know that this would play a big role in court decisions.

Its more like several thousand dollars for a gun safe that would actually prevent a serious attempt at theft. Hundreds of dollars will get you a locking sheet metal box, which doesn't accomplish anything you couldn't do already do with a trigger lock or lock through the magazine well plus a chain. A fair number of states already require such a lock to be sold with every new gun sale anyway; requiring that it be used for stored weapons is far more reasonable, and creates no problem for people owing large numbers of weapons. But that's the real reality, a lot of people who specifically want safes specifically want them so people can't own large numbers of guns, which is completely pointless. It makes it about fear of guns, not safety. Nobody is going to use more then a few weapons for massacre people, just like nobody can physically carry more then hundreds of rounds of ammunition, which makes the demands for bans on large ammunition sales equally pointless. It does nothing but curb legitimate sporting. Fear again, not logic.

[His Divine Shadow]

450 euros got me a good enough safe (SS 3492 certification), it weighs 150kg empty, it has a locking system with dead bolts (granted code locks are better, still it's a proper security lock thats considered unpickable), whole thing is made from 8 gauge steel. It'll stop anyone but the prepared thief who can unbolt it from the wall and then have a lift to wheel it away (still good luck with that on the 4th floor and no elevator).

[UnderAGreySky]

Slate has an interactive tool for listing the number of gun deaths since Sandy Hook. That's 120 so far, including this one:

A 3-year-old child in Guthrie died Saturday, after accidentally shooting himself in the head, according to the Logan County Sheriff's office.

The shooting happened early Saturday afternoon in the 1500 block of Derby Lane in Guthrie.

Authorities are calling this a tragic accident after a 3-year-old boy got hold of a gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. Several agencies responded to the home just after noon.

News 9 is told the little boy was the homeowner's nephew. He was there just visiting.

The Logan County Sheriff's Office says this is clearly an accident and they aren't expecting criminal charges.

And this:

Not much is known about how 2-year-old Brennan Nowell got hold of a family handgun and shot himself. He died in the hospital Thursday night. The Hamilton County Sheriff's Office is investigating, but officials said they wouldn't comment on the case because of its sensitive nature.

This year alone, four Chattanooga-area children under the age of 14 have died because of accidental gunfire.

One boy was accidentally shot in a bathroom when a shotgun slipped, his family reported. An 11-year-old was shot in the face by her brother. A 3-year-old shot herself in the face with her grandfather's handgun.

Brennan Nowell became the fourth, shot with his grandfather's gun, neighbors told TV news crews. He died five days before Christmas.

(emphasis mine)

So, this brings me to...

If I park my car on an incline in the US without the parking brake. It rolls downhill and kills a bystander, will I be arrested for (what at least in other countries I have heard called) "culpable homicide not amounting to murder"? If not, what charges should I expect to face, and in either event is a jail term on the cards?

Moreover, isn't an accidental gun death similar? Leaving a dangerous item (car/gun) in a precarious position (no parking brake/loaded in the hands of a child) should warrant wilful ignorance (knowing you must do something and not doing it). There, IMO, need to be SOME charges against this and if more people were threatened with jail terms for badly handled firearms then at least many accidental deaths would be cut, and the security measures parents/grandparents would put in place could possibly result in a kid who snaps not getting hold of firearms when in a murderous mood.

Similarly I would propose that firing a gun while intoxicated result in loss of rights and privileges just like we do with drivers.

[Iron Bridge]

My take on this:

1. While US has a very much higher gun murder rate, and a somewhat higher overall murder rate than other developed countries, eye-catching massacres are responsible for a negligible fraction. It makes no sense to discuss this issue because a massacre happened recently.

2. Effective restrictions include banning all semi-automatic weapons and pistols. If you're not going to do this, don't bother, because you won't do anything to stop massacres like this. It makes no difference that a prospective shooter might have to use a rifle that does not look as modern or has a different type of grip. The only thing you will achieve is to disrupt legitimate use of guns.

3. Banning all semi-automatic weapons and pistols is unconstitutional in the US.

Given that the incidents are very rare and no reasonable restriction could reduce their likelihood by much, this seems to fit more in the category of regrettable tragedy, like a plane crash or a house fire, rather than urgent political call to action.

[Simon_Jester]

450 euros got me a good enough safe (SS 3492 certification), it weighs 150kg empty, it has a locking system with dead bolts (granted code locks are better, still it's a proper security lock thats considered unpickable), whole thing is made from 8 gauge steel. It'll stop anyone but the prepared thief who can unbolt it from the wall and then have a lift to wheel it away (still good luck with that on the 4th floor and no elevator).

Sure- but that's still a lot more money than the average lower-class or working-class American is likely to want to spend. Some might DO it, but it's...

Again, some lawyer is going to argue, and not entirely baselessly, that this is to gun ownership what a poll tax is to voting. I don't agree with the argument, but I think it's got some sanity to it.

“With all the foreign aid the United State does…can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?” (NYT estimated this cost to be minimum 6.4bn)

You could most likely cut that cost in half by eliminating a similar number of existing security guards making lower wages. About 100,000 people would be needed for this, sounds like NYT assumed a 64,000 dollar a year salary which is average enough for a cop + healthcare cost. Now meanwhile meanwhile Homeland Security costs 60 billion and year... anyone think the US will fall into the ocean if that was reduced 10%?

Of course, eliminating the existing security guards may mean no net gain in security.

The schools use those guards on a daily basis, if not to break up violence then to patrol the halls, keep students moving from class to class, and round up people who try to loiter and cut class. A police officer doing the same job at higher salary would work- but in terms of daily operations you're paying 20k or 30k a year more money and getting no return.

Figuring roughly one school shooting a year, the mean time to a mass shooting for a given public school is something like a hundred thousand years. So you're spending (on average) two or three billion dollars to prevent one shooting, even then, and assuming one armed cop on the scene stops the whole incident.

The same amount of money thrown at an urban area could probably save a lot more lives, including child lives.

But hell, if enough of it's taken out of the TSA's budget I'm all for it...

[His Divine Shadow]

450 euros got me a good enough safe (SS 3492 certification), it weighs 150kg empty, it has a locking system with dead bolts (granted code locks are better, still it's a proper security lock thats considered unpickable), whole thing is made from 8 gauge steel. It'll stop anyone but the prepared thief who can unbolt it from the wall and then have a lift to wheel it away (still good luck with that on the 4th floor and no elevator).

Sure- but that's still a lot more money than the average lower-class or working-class American is likely to want to spend. Some might DO it, but it's...

Again, some lawyer is going to argue, and not entirely baselessly, that this is to gun ownership what a poll tax is to voting. I don't agree with the argument, but I think it's got some sanity to it.

It's the cost of a handgun of decent quality essentially. I know it's probasbly not gonna be something easy to sell as a requirement but I had hoped the NRA would pull it's head out of it's ass and start a campaign of advocacy for gun safes and storage solutions. I mean partly thanks to the NRA and other safety minded campaigns the nation was wable to reduce gun accidents by 60% from 1970's to the 1990s, while gunownership increased 40% in the same time. I was hoping maybe we could get something like that going on the topic of gun storage.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I bought two handguns for $99.00 each--a matched pair from the Izhevsk Arsenal no less. Of course, I have a gun safe for the, but it cost more like $40.00 and is intended for secure transportation primarily, but it's also small enough to be put inside a larger general purpose fire-proof safe for more important documents. I don't consider longarms as needing a dedicated gunsafe; as long as they're locked up in some kind of strongbox that's fine.

Or just partially disassemble them and put the important bits in a small pistol safe. This is very effective.

[His Divine Shadow]

Anything, even just a rifle stand with a locked steel rod or cable running through the trigger guards would be an improvement in a lot of situations though.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Anything, even just a rifle stand with a locked steel rod or cable running through the trigger guards would be an improvement in a lot of situations though.

Well, there are parts without which a gun cannot operate which are almost trivially easy to remove and lock up / hide, which are a lot harder to cut than a cable running through the trigger guards. I agree that should be used as well if you have the ability to install such a setup.

[Aaron MkII]

If the US goes the safe storage route then it needs to be well defined in law, what the requirements are. Otherwise it becomes a shit show, just like Canada where its vague and thus can be used to persecute. You also need to define what you want it to prevent. If you want to keep kids out and give some breathing room in a domestic dispute, then a stack on is fine.

If you want to do that and prevent theft...well best of luck with that.

And Marina, are those pistols Nagants?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the US goes the safe storage route then it needs to be well defined in law, what the requirements are. Otherwise it becomes a shit show, just like Canada where its vague and thus can be used to persecute. You also need to define what you want it to prevent. If you want to keep kids out and give some breathing room in a domestic dispute, then a stack on is fine.

If you want to do that and prevent theft...well best of luck with that.

And Marina, are those pistols Nagants?

Yeah, I've got Nagants.

My suggestion for safe storage is that a household must have some kind of locked security mechanism capable of holding all guns, which requires tools to successful break by main force (i.e., it can be a cord, but you have to secure it to the wall well enough that someone can't just rip it out). At any given time, one gun per adult physically present in the house may be unlocked for personal defence purposes. This gun must be secured if the adult leaves the house without it.

If you live in a house with a convicted felon or mentally ill person, the standard would be much stricter: you must lock up all your guns except for one which may be kept unlocked if it is only physically on your person at all times it is unlocked, period. You set that gun down outside of the safe, you've committed a crime if you have someone living in your household who is not allowed to possess firearms. That is a very high standard, but a necessary one. As a practical matter a person living in a household with someone who is mentally ill shouldn't have firearms, but such a law makes it Heller compliant I believe.

[Aaron MkII]

Yeah, I've got Nagants.

Damn, can't find any here for love or money.

My suggestion for safe storage is that a household must have some kind of locked security mechanism capable of holding all guns, which requires tools to successful break by main force (i.e., it can be a cord, but you have to secure it to the wall well enough that someone can't just rip it out). At any given time, one gun per adult physically present in the house may be unlocked for personal defence purposes. This gun must be secured if the adult leaves the house without it.

If you live in a house with a convicted felon or mentally ill person, the standard would be much stricter: you must lock up all your guns except for one which may be kept unlocked if it is only physically on your person at all times it is unlocked, period. You set that gun down outside of the safe, you've committed a crime if you have someone living in your household who is not allowed to possess firearms. That is a very high standard, but a necessary one. As a practical matter a person living in a household with someone who is mentally ill shouldn't have firearms, but such a law makes it Heller compliant I believe.

The last one is just impossible to enforce unless we can change attitudes in the community. But it does give an opening to charge someone if something comes up.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's pretty much the point, it would be intended as a severe discouragement to keep firearms if you're living with a crazy and if you do anyway a way to hold you accountable if they do the slightest thing wrong with them.

[Sea Skimmer]

450 euros got me a good enough safe (SS 3492 certification), it weighs 150kg empty, it has a locking system with dead bolts (granted code locks are better, still it's a proper security lock thats considered unpickable), whole thing is made from 8 gauge steel. It'll stop anyone but the prepared thief who can unbolt it from the wall and then have a lift to wheel it away (still good luck with that on the 4th floor and no elevator).

Exactly, you have a sheet metal box. You think someone can't cut the lock out of 8 gauge steel in a minute or two if they had a simple angle grinder? If you live in an apartment building when someone would hear the noise, that helps, but that sure isn't the case for vast swaths of the American population. This is why a good safe with have at the least, a two layer system of construction so a small cutting blade like that is very hard pressed to reach the inner liner, and you then need more like a large metal cutting saw which is far more clumsy to carry around and a lot more likely to start a fire even with a wet towel on the floor.

I just watched a video for Euro SS 3492 certification on a similar safe, and they didn't even touch it with any kind of saw. They drilled at it a little, and then played around with a bolt cutter and a prybar. I dunno why either, the drill they had was already much bigger then the required size of angle grinder, but it does not inspire faith in the standard.

[His Divine Shadow]

They can cut the lock out, but that'd just make a hole in the door, good luck actuating the locking mechanism then, which has to be lifted upwards and locks the door along it's entire length on multiple points. They'd have to make a hole big enough to reach into and bring the guns out of, or they'd have to cut off the entire door and lift it away. The few times these safes have not been adequate against thieves over here it's because the safe wasn't bolted down and they ferried it away and broke it open elsewhere where they had time and tools.

Either way it wouldn't and doesn't need to be a foolproof solution, a safe like that is going to be a massive help against the average thief and maybe a spree shooter like this one. Safes like these are required in Sweden from gun 1 and in Finland after you own 5 guns and legal guns are almost never stolen because the thieves aren't prepared to deal with them, most thieves aren't that professional and prepared. Hence in sweden the gun owners can point out to the antis that legal guns are almost never stolen and illegal guns found on criminals by the police have been 99% smuggled in from abroad, that really ticks the antis off.

Frankly I think safes not even meeting our certifications will be a massive improvement. But since safes and such options seems to be off the table anyway I guess we'll just get nothing, or maybe some useless bans that don't work and aren't enforceable and drive the democrats away from power. Oh well.