[karajorma]

Except that I'm arguing that even a law to force the mandatory sale of trigger locks or gun safes won't go through or at the very least will face very stiff opposition.

You're merely picking one part of my argument and trying to claim that's the entire argument. But anyway, I think I've reached the point where I've said my piece. We'll see next year if the willingness to legislate or to change was there or not.

[Nuke]

as far as accidental shootings, locking away guns gives curious children a mission (all be it one where they often kill themselves/other people entirely on accident). you are better off taking them to the range or take em hunting, or enroll them in a gun safety class. frankly im surprised we dont teach gun safety in high school.

[MP-Ryan]

To be honest, I'm quite aware of what he's citing; however unlike him I actually live here and know that it's not operative in the manner Ryan thinks it is. A court challenge has even money on beating it and the government isn't going to pursue you into your house to check under any normal circumstance. "Can", "Will" and "Will Have Your Can Taken Away For Trying" are different things.

The courts in your country, as in mine, have specifically accepted that parties subject to regulatory inspection have a diminished expectation of privacy.  Where regulation extends to property, that principle applies.  In Canada, this is done in two ways:  firearms inspectors have authority to enter a dwelling and inspect firearms in limited circumstances; they also have the power to compel a person to bring their firearm(s) to a place at a reasonable time of the inspector's choosing and make the firearm available for inspection.

Regulatory compliance checks are not investigations, and therefore the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure does not exempt a person from them.  The USSC has ruled on this subject in the context of the border already and precedent is established.

[MP-Ryan]

as far as accidental shootings, locking away guns gives curious children a mission (all be it one where they often kill themselves/other people entirely on accident). you are better off taking them to the range or take em hunting, or enroll them in a gun safety class. frankly im surprised we dont teach gun safety in high school.

Nonsense.  Well, not teaching gun safety, that's a good idea.  Nonsense is the bit about kids getting access.  My family has firearms locked in a gun safe, the combination for which is not written down, and the guns are secured by removing the bolts and locking with trigger locks.  None of that precludes me from getting a shotgun out and loading it in a matter of 60 seconds, but there is no way in hell anyone who doesn't know the combo and the location of the keys is making those guns functional.

There are simple ways to properly secure and store guns.  Responsible owners do this already.

[karajorma]

Frankly im surprised we dont teach gun safety in high school.

That's the bit where quite a few liberals get just as stupid as the Republicans they like to mock. They accept that you can teach sex ed in school and still say "But don't **** until you're older" but seem to have an issue with the fact that you can just as easily teach gun safety and still not be encouraging people to buy a gun.

[Mikes]

Frankly im surprised we dont teach gun safety in high school.

That's the bit where quite a few liberals get just as stupid as the Republicans they like to mock. They accept that you can teach sex ed in school and still say "But don't **** until you're older" but seem to have an issue with the fact that you can just as easily teach gun safety and still not be encouraging people to buy a gun.

That's rather different.

Teenagers ARE going to f***. There is really nothing you can do about it. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether they should have the knowledge of how to practice safe sex or not. The notion that Sex Ed would in any way or form significantly encourage them more than our entire culture, cinema and TV already does is outright ridiculous.

And those idiotic "abstinence only" programs that tell people to "just wait till later/marriage" (instead of teaching them about how to have safe sex) have long been proven to have only one effect: A rather disastrous increase in teenage pregnancies.

Gun safety is an entirely different matter. Kids/teenagers generally do not come into contact with guns unless someone else messes up horribly first, nor is there any reason at all that they should come into contact with lethal weaponry. It's also outright hilarious hat anyone would still ask "why" there is such a high amount of gun violence in the US, when the US is pretty much the only country with such lax gun laws in the western world... and everyone else is pretty much shaking their head at them (while having a tiny fraction of the gun related incidents that the US has.... due to strict gun laws.)

Frankly... I get it... the right to bear arms is a part of US culture. It's hard to give that up.
The right to bear arms also directly causes an amounts of innocent deaths per year that dwarves the deaths caused by terrorism.
Ultimately... the US will have to have to decide if the right to bear arms is worth those deaths.
The pro gun lobby will eventually at least face up to that fact due to overwhelming evidence, instead of pu**yfooting around the issue like they currently still do.

Don't take me wrong.... I really do get it.
In Germany we have occasional gun related violence too, but the amount is tiny compared to the US. We don't have that problem, or at least not to the ridiculous extent that the US has it, but it's never been part of our culture either.
What we do have however, is no speed limit on the Autobahn... and that also proven to cause a certain amount of deaths per year... yet no politician that does not want to commit political suicide would ever dream of amending THAT law.

I still do hope that at some point both our countries will do the sensible thing, when the death toll gets too much.

As far as the US goes... with the amount of shootings per year now, I doubt anyone, even pro gun advocates, would disagree that an effective solution has to be found and the matter can not just continue to be ignored.

[redsniper]

Kids/teenagers generally do not come into contact with guns unless someone else messes up horribly first, nor is there any reason at all that they should come into contact with lethal weaponry.

Or if they just... live in the country.

[karajorma]

That's rather different.

Teenagers ARE going to f***. There is really nothing you can do about it. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether they should have the knowledge of how to practice safe sex or not. The notion that Sex Ed would in any way or form significantly encourage them more than our entire culture, cinema and TV already does is outright ridiculous.

And those idiotic "abstinence only" programs that tell people to "just wait till later/marriage" (instead of teaching them about how to have safe sex) have long been proven to have only one effect: A rather disastrous increase in teenage pregnancies.

Gun safety is an entirely different matter. Kids/teenagers generally do not come into contact with guns unless someone else messes up horribly first, nor is there any reason at all that they should come into contact with lethal weaponry.

In any country other than America, you might have a point. But in America, especially in certain parts of America, coming into contact with guns is about as much a fact of life as sex is.

But ignoring that, you've missed the main point of sex education and therefore of gun education. The religious right preach "abstinence only" because they too miss this point. You don't teach kids history because you want them to be able to talk about the Civil War at age 14. You teach them history because you want them to be able to talk about the Civil War at any point in their later life!

The same is very much true for sex education. Abstinence Only lessons fail not just children but the adults they become because even if they are successful at preventing teen pregnancies the resulting married couples have no idea about birth control and cling to stupid playground myths instead.

And teaching kids how to be safe around guns is analogous. It's not just about preventing the child ****ing up and blowing someone or himself away. It's about making sure the adult he will become knows exactly why he should keep any guns he does decide to buy in a gun safe.

Now I'm certainly not saying that other countries need something like this. Most other countries in The West have found a far more sensible way of dealing with this issue. But in America it's something that might be a damn good idea.

Won't happen of course, your reaction to the idea is exactly the same as the reaction of someone on the religious right when told his kid should have sex ed. And it's exactly the same reaction you'd get from the left wing.

[Mikes]

Now I'm certainly not saying that other countries need something like this. Most other countries in The West have found a far more sensible way of dealing with this issue. But in America it's something that might be a damn good idea.

Won't happen of course, your reaction to the idea is exactly the same as the reaction of someone on the religious right when told his kid should have sex ed. And it's exactly the same reaction you'd get from the left wing.

There is something fundamentally out of whack in regards to guns in America and suggesting to teach "gun safety" as a solution is just completely nonsensical and I believe I can even explain to you why:

I mean... does anyone really think that those people who slaughter kids at schools do so because they do not understand gun safety? ...
They kill other people because they want to kill other people and often themselves as well.

Do you really think teaching gun safety to any of these school schooters would have made any difference at all?
How would knowledge of gun safety in any way or form even influence their suicidal wish for slaughter?


Excuse my choice of language, but it's completely idiotic to compare this issue to sex ed:
For sex, the "worst case", i.e. a teenage pregnancy, is usually an accident, often due to lack of knowledge.
Gun violence is not an accident at all. It is a deliberate act, often motivated by deep psychological issues. 

I thought that difference was rather obvious.

Knowledge of gun safety would have no effect on school shootings at all... except maybe teach the perpetrator to be more competent with guns and not hurt himself on accident, as he slaughters everyone else during his quest for revenge/suicide/rage/etc.


Also:  Teenagers and especially teenagers at school... fight, they fight all the time matter of fact, with words and fists and sometimes even that gets out of hand. That's what they always did and always do and if you gave them access to lethal weaponry a lot of them would not surive the experience to learn better (i.e. not to fight in the first place) while they grow up.

You give adults free access to guns... some (adult) nutcases will go on deliberate killingsprees and at least some of those guns will find their ways into the hands of teenagers and sometimes you even have a kid blow his brains out on accident or on purpose. That is also a fact. While the later is an accident where teaching gun safety may actually help... those school shootings are certainly not.

There is however an effective solution as demonstrated by so many other countries and there is no effective alternative that has been brought up so far.

That's what any pro gun supporter at least should face up to. I'm sick and tired of the stupid excuses. Admitting to themselves what the cost of the "right to bear arms" actually is, would be a first step towards a sane solution.

[Colonol Dekker]

This discussion is..........spirited

[karajorma]

Knowledge of gun safety would have no effect on school shootings at all.

And once again you've missed the point and gone off on a pointless rant. For a start you've completely missed the fact that I'm actually strongly pro-gun control. But the simple fact is that nothing will be achieved at all if both sides refuse to acknowledge that a middle road path needs to be taken since neither side is ever going to get it all their own way.

So no, it wouldn't stop school shooters immediately. It would however stop a hell of a lot of accidental shootings. And more children die as a result of those every year. Furthermore it would later stop a small number of school shootings as those people would make sure that there weapons have trigger locks etc.  That's a minor side benefit but not a completely negligible one. In this case for instance no one would have been shot if the perp's mother had kept her guns in a safe which only she knew the combination to.

And last but not least, who says that gun safety lessons need to be taught by giving actual working guns to kids? That's almost as much a case of missing the point as the religious nut who claims that sex ed means that the kids will be told to **** in class and the teacher will grade them on it.

[Mikes]

Knowledge of gun safety would have no effect on school shootings at all.

And once again you've missed the point and gone off on a pointless rant. For a start you've completely missed the fact that I'm actually strongly pro-gun control. But the simple fact is that nothing will be achieved at all if both sides refuse to acknowledge that a middle road path needs to be taken since neither side is ever going to get it all their own way.

So no, it wouldn't stop school shooters immediately. It would however stop a hell of a lot of accidental shootings. And more children die as a result of those every year. Furthermore it would later stop a small number of school shootings as those people would make sure that there weapons have trigger locks etc.  That's a minor side benefit but not a completely negligible one. In this case for instance no one would have been shot if the perp's mother had kept her guns in a safe which only she knew the combination to.

A middle road would be a step into the right direction, but ultimately a half measure, as we both already know what that right direction is, don't we?
And call me a cynic, but in practice ... that middle road approach would likely end up being a lot more of ineffectual squabbling with nothing being done to solve the actual problem.

And if you really think that gun control lessons in school are going to lead to responsible behavior in adult live and have any effect on school shootings down the road at all I do have several bridges that I would like to sell to you. That's almost as ridiculous as expecting people to lead a healthy lifestyle by giving them a couple of nutrition lessons at school. (I am a teacher btw ...  you simply will not modify peoples behavior that easily.)

So from my viewpoint "gun control at school" would be another ineffective baindaid fix that might make some politicians feel better for "having done something" while completely ignoring the actual problem.

And last but not least, who says that gun safety lessons need to be taught by giving actual working guns to kids? That's almost as much a case of missing the point as the religious nut who claims that sex ed means that the kids will be told to **** in class and the teacher will grade them on it.

You misunderstood. I never said that. What I said is that with lax gun control laws like the US some guns are inevitably going to end up in the hands of teenagers and kids.

What I did point out afterwards was there is not a single good reason to give liberal access to guns to either teenagers or adults. - certainly not to Assault Rifles...  let's not forget just how ridiculous the gun control situation in the US actually is.... Assault Rifles of crying out loud ...

See I do understand when someone who has an actual need for a gun (like a hunting rifle for someone who lives in an area with wild animals) does not want to give that right up, ...  but semiautomatic and even automatic weapons? How can anyone even begin to justify having that stuff available ...

[Lorric]

The very ideas of teaching gun safety in schools and having gun safes and people to come to houses and check weapons just seem so absurd to me as a resident of the UK.

Just get rid of the weapons! It seems like such a logical thing, I don't know why Americans don't see it too to stop this senseless slaughter. Criminals don't carry out massacres. Except against other criminals. Criminals don't want to go to jail. They'll use guns to get their way, but outside of the odd sick bastard, who's a different animal, if they can get what they want without shooting people they will, they're out to make money and be out of jail to spend it. An automatic penalty for carrying a gun might also deter criminals from using them, if they knew they didn't need a gun because no one else was packing one.

Here's a little story for you, we know someone who got burgled once. She called the cops and they took ages to arrive, and showed up way too late to do anything useful.

Later, she got burgled again, and this time she lied and told the cops she thought she saw a gun. In like two minutes the place was swarming with cops. Now, if that was the difference to a criminal carrying a gun and not carrying a gun, do you think criminals would carry guns as much?

[Mikes]

Later, she got burgled again, and this time she lied and told the cops she thought she saw a gun. In like two minutes the place was swarming with cops. Now, if that was the difference to a criminal carrying a gun and not carrying a gun, do you think criminals would carry guns as much?

I believe that's kind of the point that most Americans simply do not get their heads around. That stupid slogan "Guns do not kill people" couldn't be more wrong.

A gun, just by being there and available, makes killing, especially multiple killings like school shootings, much much "easier" and also... just by "being there" a gun escalates any conflict to one that can easily end lethal. So yeah "Availability of guns actually does kill people, a lot of them actually".

Statistical evidence is rather too overwhelming to talk that fact away. As said earlier, at this point, that's all I am asking: For the pro gun lobby to face up to the facts and admit the cost of that "right to bear arms". As long as they are in outright denial when discussing the issue, you just won't find a solution.

Anyways... why don't they go the whole mile and sell some miniguns, handgrenades and claymore mines with those assault rifles? Are those too dangerous? But Assault Rifles aren't? Just doesn't make sense.

[NGTM-1R]

Criminals don't carry out massacres. Except against other criminals.

Your rank insensitivity to all the victims of the IRA and the Ulster loyalist types is noted.

Or hell, you must have skipped the '30s era of criminal history.

[Lorric]

Criminals don't carry out massacres. Except against other criminals.

Your rank insensitivity to all the victims of the IRA and the Ulster loyalist types is noted.

Or hell, you must have skipped the '30s era of criminal history.

They are terrorists.

[Scotty]

Terrorists are criminals.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that's an inherent quality of terrorism.

[Lorric]

Terrorists are criminals.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that's an inherent quality of terrorism.

I just see them as distinct from each other.

And they're not relevant to this discussion anyway. Muslim terrorists are the only terrorists America might have to deal with, and they almost never use guns in their attacks, it's all about bombs.

[General Battuta]

Terrorists are criminals.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that's an inherent quality of terrorism.

I just see them as distinct from each other.

And they're not relevant to this discussion anyway. Muslim terrorists are the only terrorists America might have to deal with, and they almost never use guns in their attacks, it's all about bombs.

What the **** are you talking about? Before 9/11 the most horrifying terrorist attack in American history was conducted by an American, and Muslim terrorists have conducted devastating massacres using only firearms.

[Lorric]

Oh I give up.

Please, all of you, feel free to tell me why terrorists have any bearing in a discussion on gun control, and their relevance in this discussion.

I don't know, maybe I should have said common criminals.