Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[TheWall]

It's BEEN implemented.

I'd like to see mandatory certification on gun handling for the weapon (type/class) purchased and certification on gun safety. I'd actually tweek the civil side - you (general) show that you made every reasonable effort (gun safe, locked doors) to keep your weapon secured when it wasn't on your person or you face liability for any and all damages resulting from its use for up to one year after the theft and not subject to bankruptcy protection. Any harm done while in your possession is also not subject to bankruptcy protection.

You are responsible for the weapon. You are responsible for any ammunition it discharges.

It is good to see we agree that the one shooting is the responsible one. The safe thing could work maybe.

[Teallaura]

actually they didn't. They were infringing too. It just never was tested in court until recently and decided that it was infringing and the the 2nd took precedence, that was why it was incorporated: to make it official.

That is total nonsense. Incorporation applies the Second to the states - but both state and fed regulation existed pre-incorporation and was left largely in place post incorporation. The Court found no such thing.

[Cerebrum123]

Granted on the first point, disputed on the second. But even if I conceded both, how does that make gun control a bad idea?

Anything short of abolition won't do anything since existing laws aren't being enforced, and things like the "assault weapon ban" were just dumb to begin with. Abolition of guns* will just result in rebellion. I've never seen anyone calling for "gun control" suggest anything that would actually reduce violent crime, or killing sprees.

* I know that's not what you want, but it's the only measure I've heard suggested that would reduce gun caused deaths by any significant amount.

[Teallaura]

It is good to see we agree that the one shooting is the responsible one. The safe thing could work maybe.

That 'guns don't kill people' canard is a anti-gun control talking point. Most folks are actually pro-gun control - the sticking point is how much control is needed and appropriate.

And I find that gun proponents are often less willing to take responsibility for 'accidents'. Blaming a woman for wearing white gloves in HER OWN YARD and being shot to death by an idiot who couldn't be bothered to make sure he was shooting at a deer coming immediately to mind.

He was acquitted.

[Teallaura]

Anything short of abolition won't do anything since existing laws aren't being enforced, and things like the "assault weapon ban" were just dumb to begin with. Abolition of guns* will just result in rebellion. I've never seen anyone calling for "gun control" suggest anything that would actually reduce violent crime, or killing sprees.

* I know that's not what you want, but it's the only measure I've heard suggested that would reduce gun caused deaths by any significant amount.

I suspect increased liability would do a lot but so what? Gun control is still a good thing over all - even if it does need correcting.

*The assault weapons ban particulars have as much to do with gun proponents getting snitty and refusing to participate as the ban itself. I don't see 'lookie, this isn't really what you meant' as much of a counter argument. Fix the legislation if necessary - but I see little effort toward 'fix' and a lot toward 'reverse'.

[Sea of red]

Yes they are.

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ide-full-auto/

So are bazookas:

https://www.atf.gov/file/55446/download

Actually, automatic weapons made after 1985 can not be lawfully owned by the public. The only items one can buy are those that were grandfathered in. You'll need one in decent shape, which isn't easy to find.

In order to obtain ownership of a machine gun you must receive an NFA permit from the ATF, where you are then subjected to a deep probe into your personal background, and can be denied for a multitude of reasons. Then you have to learn whether your weapon is legal on the state level -- each state has different restrictions. Then you have to get your local sheriff to sign his approval of the NFA weapon, and he can also refuse to sign.

Once you've gotten past those two obstacles you have to locate an approved dealer, and there are specific forms one has to has to fill out that cover the ownership, transport, and location of the weapon. It is illegal to transport, transfer ownership, or not register automatic weapons without ATF approval. There are also circumstance of negligence that may result in a weapon being forfeited.

It's a pretty thorough process, and it's a market that's tightly regulated.

Then of course there's the steep price of automatic weapons...

https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/

Got between $12-35K to burn?

[TheWall]

That 'guns don't kill people' canard is a anti-gun control talking point. Most folks are actually pro-gun control - the sticking point is how much control is needed and appropriate.

And I find that gun proponents are often less willing to take responsibility for 'accidents'. Blaming a woman for wearing white gloves in HER OWN YARD and being shot to death by an idiot who couldn't be bothered to make sure he was shooting at a deer coming immediately to mind.

Teal do guns fire themselves? Not automatic sentry but a gun you would buy at a store. They do not. When people say that they are pointing out that a person is using a gun. Besides unless you want to pistol whip somebody you are not going to kill with the gun itself but the bullets the gun propels.

I want to see what Micah said would happen about swords being beaten into plows hares but that will happen at the end of days when things are set right permanently and evil is wiped out.

We agree on something big here. Life is precious. We disagree on how to protect life in this circumstance.

I must admit though I feel happy that you and kg and adrift are not demonizing folks.

[TheWall]

I suspect increased liability would do a lot but so what? Gun control is still a good thing over all - even if it does need correcting.

*The assault weapons ban particulars have as much to do with gun proponents getting snitty and refusing to participate as the ban itself. I don't see 'lookie, this isn't really what you meant' as much of a counter argument. Fix the legislation if necessary - but I see little effort toward 'fix' and a lot toward 'reverse'.

You admit it needs correcting and much dialogue.
What do you reccomend as a correction?

[Joel]

No it is not a right, that is why you have to have a license and they can take away your ability to drive. It is legally a 'privilege' not a right.

https://driversed.com/driving-inform...t-a-right.aspx

I think you don't legally have to have a license to drive on private property. It's a license to operate a motor vehicle on government property.

And why should possessing and using firearms be any different than possessing and using a car?

I believe you don't have to have a license to possess a car or to operate it on private property. So the analogy with guns would be that you'd have to have a government license only if you want a license to discharge your firearm on government property. If you want to own a gun and operate it on private property, no license required.

How are you defining a natural right, and what makes owning a ground to air missile say, a natural right?

Sparko may differ from me, but I'd define a natural right as a right that exists prior to human-created governments or conventions. It's not an artificial invention, but exists by reason of the nature of being human.

As for arguing particular rights, I personally say that the most fundamental basis for gun rights is the right to property. One has the right to manufacture (and thus own) a gun because one has the right to transform one's property into another form. And then likewise property rights is the most fundamental basis for the right to transfer that original ownership through trade or gift.

I might ask you a question in return: How would it be possible for a person (or group of persons) to claim that they have the right to own a ground-to-air missile, and that other people do not have that same right? How would that state of affairs (of unequal rights among human beings) come to be?

[Cerebrum123]

I suspect increased liability would do a lot but so what? Gun control is still a good thing over all - even if it does need correcting.

*The assault weapons ban particulars have as much to do with gun proponents getting snitty and refusing to participate as the ban itself. I don't see 'lookie, this isn't really what you meant' as much of a counter argument. Fix the legislation if necessary - but I see little effort toward 'fix' and a lot toward 'reverse'.

Seriously? The whole ban was based on the cosmetic appearance of a weapon rather than functionality. Even if some* gun manufacturers hadn't made identically functioning weapons with a different appearance it would have been dumb legislation. As rogue already pointed out, one of the "assault weapons" that was banned held a single bullet, and had to be reopened in order to load a new one in.

I'm still not seeing anything that would actually prevent the kinds of shootings that this thread was started about being suggested.

*From what I understand this wasn't the case with several weapons with legal and illegal versions, as the law was based on cosmetic appearance to begin with.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you can't. I haven't ever lost a pet or a friend to an accident involving knives, or electronics - NEVER. The only person I knew who was killed in a car wreck was killed when a fleeing suspect crossing into oncoming traffic years ago - technically, guns were involved, although not being fired. Never known anyone who accidentally poisoned themselves.

But I have been shot at on three different occasions. I have lost more than ten dogs and cats (how the heck do you mistake a ginger cat for a deer?!). I lost a friend and several years before I lost a neighbor.

So no - it's NOT the same.

[One Bad Pig]

No training, no prior ownership - yeah, that makes for a great plan. Not.

Not great, but better that than being wholly defenseless. Firing a gun is not exactly difficult.

[Joel]

...Putting limits and regulations on a right is infringing on it by definition....Practically what we are doing is turning a blind eye to the constitution when we regulate guns.

Yes, it seems to me that the courts have carved out lots of exceptions to what the Constitutions says, that are really un-Constitutional. And not just with the 2nd Amendment. In the 20th century, SCOTUS carved out exceptions for when its okay for the government to do what the Constitution seems clearly to prohibit, e.g. if the government has a "rational basis" for, or a "compelling interest" in, having the law. When the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law", what kind of interpreting is it to say that that means "Congress shall make no law unless Congress shall be sufficiently interested in making such law"? Or how do they maintain with a straight face that compulsory military service is not involuntary servitude (13th Amendment)? Or when SCOTUS holds that regulation of most things that are not even commerce is regulation of interstate commerce. Or that the 4th Amendment can be ignored if we just label the search an "administrative search". They have lost much credibility of being a good interpreter of the Constitution. The vast majority of what the U.S. federal government does is unconstitutional, which implies that SCOTUS has been either complicit in permitting it or incompetent to prevent it.

[Joel]

In that case, yes, but merely regulating is not considered infringement. Sure, it can over step - but it is not itself unconstitutional and never has been.

How do you define/distinguish the two?

[rogue06]

Seriously? The whole ban was based on the cosmetic appearance of a weapon rather than functionality. Even if some* gun manufacturers hadn't made identically functioning weapons with a different appearance it would have been dumb legislation. As rogue already pointed out, one of the "assault weapons" that was banned held a single bullet, and had to be reopened in order to load a new one in.

I'm still not seeing anything that would actually prevent the kinds of shootings that this thread was started about being suggested.

*From what I understand this wasn't the case with several weapons with legal and illegal versions, as the law was based on cosmetic appearance to begin with.

The bolded section is the point. Every time I've seen someone on various news and talking head shows calling for new and tougher gun control laws the past week and a half get asked what sort of law do they propose that would stop these short of killings they either go silent or change the topic. Every. Single. Time.