[quetza]

Originally Posted by ellysuax3 ↗

Well, that’s what I’m saying. Regulate it. Enforce it. Make it tough for people to obtain a gun. Can’t speak for the future thereafter but it’s a start.

If you want to make it tougher for people to obtain a gun you are NOT all for the second amendment, as you said you were in a previous post.

That is the exact opposite of what the second amendment is about.

I’m all ears for what law could have prevented this shooting…

Make murder illegal? Done
Prohibit felons from possessing firearms? Done
Ban firearms on school property? Done
Age cutoffs for purchasing firearms? Done
Federal ban on “assault” weapons? Shown to have no measurable impact and results were mixed

If the boys father was not a felon and purchased the gun legally there is absolutely nothing the law could have done to prevent this. It boils down to shitty humans making shitty choices and you can’t make laws that will stop people from being shitty humans.

The law only restricts those that obey it. I’ve never been arrested and the only run in with the law I’ve had was a speeding ticket as a teenager. Why on earth would you create more restrictive laws that will make it harder for me as a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm? If your answer is: because it will make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms, then you’ve missed the mark because we’ve clearly seen that it doesn’t. The only thing that would work is a complete ban on, and confiscation of, all firearms. I know some on this forum would be all for that but thank God for the constitution which grants us the right to own and possess them, so that strategy won’t work and isn’t legal as long as the 2nd amendment is active. So repeal the second amendment? Ok, so then once again, only law-abiding citizens would comply and criminals would still be in possession of guns.

Are you seeing the circuitous nature of the “take guns and ban them” argument? I’m not saying that’s what you’re arguing, but many do and it wouldn’t work. There are just too many shitty people in the world.

Me and my guns have never harmed anyone. The same goes for millions of law-abiding citizens throughout America (and other places where possession is legal)…so why would we make ownership difficult and cumbersome when they have the right to own them? A right that clearly states “Shall not be infringed”

Fuck me. I wrote a novel and didn’t mean to. I’m also all for having open, civil conversations about differing opinions. I know those tend to be rare on this forum and things tend to degrade to “well fuck you, you fucking little twat sucking cunt mother fucking fucker racist bitch!!”

[miscreant]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

I’m also all for having open, civil conversations about differing opinions. I know those tend to be rare on this forum and things tend to degrade to “well fuck you, you fucking little twat sucking cunt mother fucking fucker racist bitch!!”

Nice to hear someone shares my opinion about civil discourse, if not about guns ;)

I get what you're saying and don't feel like outlawing ALL guns would be fair or makes sense in light of the 2A. However, I think there are a few things that would help. A lot.

First, let's set aside the "ban guns and only criminals will have guns" argument. I actually agree with this. But... so what? They're going to have them no matter what. Adding more guns to a situation seems to only escalate things and potentially cause a fatality situation where one may not have existed. Add to that the possibility of hitting bystanders, the confusion of "who's the bad guy?" when the cops show up, etc. I think this dream that everyone is going to be strapped and defending themselves and handing out street justice is more fantasy than anything.

Yes, I know there are videos on here of criminals getting wasted by people packing heat and I must admit it is indeed satisfying to watch. But I'm not sure that we want to live in a world where everyone is carrying and that shit is happening as a part of everyday life. There's way more that can go wrong there than right.

Second, some sort of ban or intense restriction on handguns wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Besides looking cool and being easier to conceal, they don't really serve much purpose that a long gun doesn't. This Ethan kid wouldn't have been able to sneak a long gun in his backpack that's for sure. Could he have worn a trenchcoat or some shit a la Harris & Klebold and hidden it underneath? Yeah maybe, but it would have been a lot harder. At least half the fucked up gun videos on this site are handgun-related and at least half of those probably never would have been able to even happen with a long gun.

Third, more intense regulation and licensing would make people respect their responsibility to firearms even more. These parents sound like a couple of fucking jackoffs, buying a gun and flashing it around with their kid, calling it his christmas present and whatever. More scrutiny, background checks, longer waiting period, register/track ammo not just guns, etc. Fuck man, we have to wait a month to get good toilet paper on the shelf sometimes these days! Who gives a shit if you have to wait a little longer for a gun?

Oh and about your 2A comment saying that the right clearly states "shall not be infringed". Yeah well it also says "a well-regulated militia". I wonder what militia this kid, or his dad or mom, were a part of?

Look I'm not even close to having all the answers on this. But I do know that quite a bit of research shows that guns you own are more likely to kill you or someone you care about:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/
https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/03/o...ction_mor.html
https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/gun...nce-prevention
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...nse-gun-use-2/

At the end of the day, if the zombie apocalypse comes, you can bet I will haul ass to my friends house. The one with like 40 guns in his basement. And I'll be glad he's got them. But that's not the real world we live in. We have a (mostly) law abiding bunch of folks here in the US who (mostly) have the best quality of life that humans have ever enjoyed. We should be working towards a society where we don't need this shit. More guns just makes things more dangerous. Shit man just look at the videos on this site! When more videos on DR say "Man kills intruder defending family with gun" instead of "maniac shoots 20 people at wal mart" or whatever other fucked up shit people are doing, maybe then I'll change my tune. But until then...

[BBKF]

According to the timeline the mother posted a message stating that they were trying out the son’s new Christmas present. So parents purchased the handgun for their 15 yr old son. Parents have been caught and charged with Involuntary Manslaughter and are in jail on $500,000 bond. They were caught in Detroit due to info provided by a tipster and were heading for Canadian border.

[Pyramid_Head]

Originally Posted by BBKF ↗

According to the timeline the mother posted a message stating that they were trying out the son’s new Christmas present. So parents purchased the handgun for their 15 yr old son. Parents have been caught and charged with Involuntary Manslaughter and are in jail on $500,000 bond. They were caught in Detroit due to info provided by a tipster and were heading for Canadian border.

Don't these idiots know Canada would gladly hand them over to the U.S?

[hulk]

Originally Posted by NurseBettie ↗

How many times have you seen a concealed carry hero save everybody? Maybe two? Ever in the history of mass shooters

Concealed carriers save lives all the time. Look up Active Self Protection on YouTube and you'll have virtually unlimited examples.

[hulk]

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

From what I'm seeing in the news, the dad bought the gun on Black Friday, and the kid then filched it from his parent's unlocked dresser drawer.

It's unclear if the gun was bought for the kid, or for the dad, but I'm not sure why it would be in the parent's drawer if it was for the kid... and as you said it's not legal for the kid to own a gun anyway.

from CNN @ https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/us/mi...age/index.html

McDonald said James Crumbley bought the gun four days before it was used in the shooting. His son Ethan was with him and later posted on social media about the gun, calling it "my new beauty."

Jennifer Crumbley also posted about the gun on social media, calling it "his new Christmas present," McDonald said.

When news broke about the shooting, according to McDonald, Jennifer Crumbley sent her son a text: "Ethan, don't do it." James Crumbley called 911 to report a gun was missing and his son might be the shooter.

McDonald said investigators found that the gun used in the shooting had been stored unlocked in a drawer in the couple's bedroom.

It's absolutely legal for anyone of any age to own a gun. It's legal for a 15 year old to buy a gun from a private seller. What isn't legal is for someone underage to buy from an FFL

[Vixənn]

Originally Posted by hulk ↗

It's absolutely legal for anyone of any age to own a gun. It's legal for a 15 year old to buy a gun from a private seller. What isn't legal is for someone underage to buy from an FFL

"Licensed firearms dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.

"Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions."

federal law distinguishes between long guns (rifles & shotguns) & handguns.

[hulk]

Originally Posted by Vixənn ↗

"Licensed firearms dealers may not sell or deliver a handgun or ammunition for a handgun to any person the dealer has reasonable cause to believe is under age 21.

"Unlicensed persons may not sell, deliver or otherwise transfer a handgun or handgun ammunition to any person the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18, with certain exceptions."

federal law distinguishes between long guns (rifles & shotguns) & handguns.

Yes true. The list of exceptions is pretty long, including if the parents give consent...

[quetza]

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

First, let's set aside the "ban guns and only criminals will have guns" argument. I actually agree with this. But... so what? They're going to have them no matter what . . .

"They are going to have them no matter." Exactly why I argue that we should stop penalizing law-abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

I think this dream that everyone is going to be strapped and defending themselves and handing out street justice is more fantasy than anything.

I dont think it's anything that should be considered a dream or fantasy. I think its a wonderful concept that allows us the freedom to defend ourselves at any given notice from death or grave bodily harm. I also think its a far cry from street justice. i think street justice is where you deprive someone of due process. you or a loved one (or even a random stranger) who is being threatened with death or grave bodily harm and having that threat dealt with via a firearm you carry is not street justice and you are not depriving someone of due process.

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

Yes, I know there are videos on here of criminals getting wasted by people packing heat and I must admit it is indeed satisfying to watch. But I'm not sure that we want to live in a world where everyone is carrying and that shit is happening as a part of everyday life. There's way more that can go wrong there than right.

This goes hand-in-hand with what i just mentioned above: someone defending themselves against another who is attempting to deprive them of their right's, whether it is taking their life or their property under threat of violence or actual violence. i have zero qualms about living in a world where everyone legally carries. criminals will carry but that wouldn't matter in said world because those they prey on would have the ability to defend themselves. i think if someone chooses to carry a firearm and use it when they feel threatened they should be prepared to face the potential consequences of pulling the trigger. we've seen two particular cases in recent weeks that were ruled two different ways and regardless of the outcomes and what you think of them my point stands: if you carry a gun and use it, be prepared for any legal repercussions.

I like to think of myself as a level headed individual. I have plenty of firearm training, spent time in the military, have been in a few life-threatening situations and feel confident that i'm not going to be drawing my firearm because kevin cut in line at starbucks and made me mad. if i'm drawing my firearm its because i feel like there is serious shit going down and lives may be at stake. i choose to carry and i accept that responsibility and, again, have no qualms living in a world where other do.

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

Second, some sort of ban or intense restriction on handguns wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Besides looking cool and being easier to conceal, they don't really serve much purpose that a long gun doesn't. This Ethan kid wouldn't have been able to sneak a long gun in his backpack that's for sure. Could he have worn a trenchcoat or some shit a la Harris & Klebold and hidden it underneath? Yeah maybe, but it would have been a lot harder. At least half the fucked up gun videos on this site are handgun-related and at least half of those probably never would have been able to even happen with a long gun.

I can't really argue this point at all because both of our arguments are complete conjecture. i can't say i agree with the idea that handguns are easier to conceal so thats why they should be banned.

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

Third, more intense regulation and licensing would make people respect their responsibility to firearms even more.

i completely disagree with this. how many career criminals do we see in the world? FAR. TOO. MANY. do they respect their responsibility to the law after their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th run-ins with the law? after they've spent years in prison for violent crimes (or whatever else they were jailed for) we see many return to a life of crime. regardless of the argument for it (they grew up that way, the system set them up for failure, etc., etc.,) we make our own decisions and tighter restrictions and regulations aren't going to make people suddenly become good humans. its like trying to teach ethics, it can't be done. we have the ability to reason and you'll either be ethical and obey the law, or you'll be a shitty human and break it. sitting through hours of classes, motivational speakers a videos isn't going to make someone suddenly decide to be a good human being.

i treat the scenario in jest, but it illustrates my point:
DJ: ok mike, you got your gun? ready to roll? the last customer just walked out of the bank
Mike:....wait DJ!!!! they told us at this class i took when i bought this gun that we had to use firearms responsibly!! the instructor, jeff, was a real good guy!! he said i have the power to choose whats right!! i'm not doing this!!!

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

These parents sound like a couple of fucking jackoffs, buying a gun and flashing it around with their kid, calling it his christmas present and whatever. More scrutiny, background checks, longer waiting period, register/track ammo not just guns, etc. Fuck man, we have to wait a month to get good toilet paper on the shelf sometimes these days! Who gives a shit if you have to wait a little longer for a gun?

Agree with the parents being scumbags. but hearken back to law-abiding bob. why should he be subjected to more scrutiny, waiting longer to get his gun, and have his name on a federal database for tracking purposes??
in 2017 there were 10,982 murders carried out by a firearm (FBI.gov statistics)

in 2019 10,142 people lost their life due to drunk-driving accidents (NHTSA.gov statistic)

i don't believe its a strawman or any other type of fallacy to ask why we scrutinize firearms so much when there are so many other preventable types of deaths (the NHTSA website even says "These deaths were all preventable.")

Why don't we have background checks on alcohol sales? waiting periods? database tracking?

i recently read an article about a new infrastructure bill that will require new cars to have breathalyzers in order to start. i think that is complete and utter bullshit. i'm sorry, but the arguments of "what? you don't care about saving lives?!?! do you hate children that get killed in drunk-driving accidents?!?!" (aside from the gross fallacy of those arguments lol) fall on deaf ears to me. i don't even drink alcohol. why should i be subjected to more regulation, higher cost of a new car (someone has to pay for those gadgets), and more hassle when i want to get in my car and drive. we already have laws that ban drunk-driving, do we not? i could go on, but i'm digressing from the discussion at hand.

my point stands, more regulation and laws have already been shown to be negligible. the ban on assault weapons is the federal governments biggest fail-of-an-example to illustrate that point. there was no measurable impact on gun violence/crime/death as a result of the ban. it was hailed as historic when it was signed.

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

Oh and about your 2A comment saying that the right clearly states "shall not be infringed". Yeah well it also says "a well-regulated militia". I wonder what militia this kid, or his dad or mom, were a part of?

Interesting, there is actually no supreme court ruling regarding just what the second amendment protects. not kidding, look it up.

they have, however, commented on the significance of the militia saying that is was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" . . . who "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." these statements are drawn from the ruling the case of United States v Miller (1939)

my emphasis was added via underline and is an assertion that is good enough for me in that even the highest court of the country expects me (a civilian) to bring my own firearm if, and when, mustered for defense. and they even comment on their interpretation of a militia (i.e. primarily composed of civilians)

Originally Posted by miscreant ↗

Look I'm not even close to having all the answers on this. But I do know that quite a bit of research shows that guns you own are more likely to kill you or someone you care about

i think most of this boils down to irresponsibility and you can't control that with laws. it could be negligent discharges or allowing improper access to guns or ammunition to household members. a close family friend had a son who shot himself in the head while cleaning his gun. was that a failure of the law or something that could have been regulated or controlled? no. it could have been prevented if he properly cleared his weapon before cleaning it. unfortunately he died and was only 16 years old. it illustrated the point of "your gun is more likely to kill a loved one" but does that really illustrate a problem with guns? i would argue no.

my guns are locked away in a rhino safe that is 700+ lbs of thickened-steel goodness and bolted to the floor. my ammo is locked away in another safe. my kids will never get unauthorized access to my firearms. a random stranger might if they know i have a safe, know where it is, bring the right tools, bypass my alarm and crack it. unlikely to happen, but as kevin garnett says, anything is possible. you can't control for every variable, but i've made it difficult and tried to control for most.

[Vixənn]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

"They are going to have them no matter." Exactly why I argue that we should stop penalizing law-abiding citizens.


I dont think it's anything that should be considered a dream or fantasy. I think its a wonderful concept that allows us the freedom to defend ourselves at any given notice from death or grave bodily harm. I also think its a far cry from street justice. i think street justice is where you deprive someone of due process. you or a loved one (or even a random stranger) who is being threatened with death or grave bodily harm and having that threat dealt with via a firearm you carry is not street justice and you are not depriving someone of due process.


This goes hand-in-hand with what i just mentioned above: someone defending themselves against another who is attempting to deprive them of their right's, whether it is taking their life or their property under threat of violence or actual violence. i have zero qualms about living in a world where everyone legally carries. criminals will carry but that wouldn't matter in said world because those they prey on would have the ability to defend themselves. i think if someone chooses to carry a firearm and use it when they feel threatened they should be prepared to face the potential consequences of pulling the trigger. we've seen two particular cases in recent weeks that were ruled two different ways and regardless of the outcomes and what you think of them my point stands: if you carry a gun and use it, be prepared for any legal repercussions.

I like to think of myself as a level headed individual. I have plenty of firearm training, spent time in the military, have been in a few life-threatening situations and feel confident that i'm not going to be drawing my firearm because kevin cut in line at starbucks and made me mad. if i'm drawing my firearm its because i feel like there is serious shit going down and lives may be at stake. i choose to carry and i accept that responsibility and, again, have no qualms living in a world where other do.



I can't really argue this point at all because both of our arguments are complete conjecture. i can't say i agree with the idea that handguns are easier to conceal so thats why they should be banned.


i completely disagree with this. how many career criminals do we see in the world? FAR. TOO. MANY. do they respect their responsibility to the law after their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th run-ins with the law? after they've spent years in prison for violent crimes (or whatever else they were jailed for) we see many return to a life of crime. regardless of the argument for it (they grew up that way, the system set them up for failure, etc., etc.,) we make our own decisions and tighter restrictions and regulations aren't going to make people suddenly become good humans. its like trying to teach ethics, it can't be done. we have the ability to reason and you'll either be ethical and obey the law, or you'll be a shitty human and break it. sitting through hours of classes, motivational speakers a videos isn't going to make someone suddenly decide to be a good human being.

i treat the scenario in jest, but it illustrates my point:
DJ: ok mike, you got your gun? ready to roll? the last customer just walked out of the bank
Mike:....wait DJ!!!! they told us at this class i took when i bought this gun that we had to use firearms responsibly!! the instructor, jeff, was a real good guy!! he said i have the power to choose whats right!! i'm not doing this!!!



Agree with the parents being scumbags. but hearken back to law-abiding bob. why should he be subjected to more scrutiny, waiting longer to get his gun, and have his name on a federal database for tracking purposes??
in 2017 there were 10,982 murders carried out by a firearm (FBI.gov statistics)

in 2019 10,142 people lost their life due to drunk-driving accidents (NHTSA.gov statistic)

i don't believe its a strawman or any other type of fallacy to ask why we scrutinize firearms so much when there are so many other preventable types of deaths (the NHTSA website even says "These deaths were all preventable.")

Why don't we have background checks on alcohol sales? waiting periods? database tracking?

i recently read an article about a new infrastructure bill that will require new cars to have breathalyzers in order to start. i think that is complete and utter bullshit. i'm sorry, but the arguments of "what? you don't care about saving lives?!?! do you hate children that get killed in drunk-driving accidents?!?!" (aside from the gross fallacy of those arguments lol) fall on deaf ears to me. i don't even drink alcohol. why should i be subjected to more regulation, higher cost of a new car (someone has to pay for those gadgets), and more hassle when i want to get in my car and drive. we already have laws that ban drunk-driving, do we not? i could go on, but i'm digressing from the discussion at hand.

my point stands, more regulation and laws have already been shown to be negligible. the ban on assault weapons is the federal governments biggest fail-of-an-example to illustrate that point. there was no measurable impact on gun violence/crime/death as a result of the ban. it was hailed as historic when it was signed.



Interesting, there is actually no supreme court ruling regarding just what the second amendment protects. not kidding, look it up.

they have, however, commented on the significance of the militia saying that is was composed of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" . . . who "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time." these statements are drawn from the ruling the case of United States v Miller (1939)

my emphasis was added via underline and is an assertion that is good enough for me in that even the highest court of the country expects me (a civilian) to bring my own firearm if, and when, mustered for defense. and they even comment on their interpretation of a militia (i.e. primarily composed of civilians)



i think most of this boils down to irresponsibility and you can't control that with laws. it could be negligent discharges or allowing improper access to guns or ammunition to household members. a close family friend had a son who shot himself in the head while cleaning his gun. was that a failure of the law or something that could have been regulated or controlled? no. it could have been prevented if he properly cleared his weapon before cleaning it. unfortunately he died and was only 16 years old. it illustrated the point of "your gun is more likely to kill a loved one" but does that really illustrate a problem with guns? i would argue no.

my guns are locked away in a rhino safe that is 700+ lbs of thickened-steel goodness and bolted to the floor. my ammo is locked away in another safe. my kids will never get unauthorized access to my firearms. a random stranger might if they know i have a safe, know where it is, bring the right tools, bypass my alarm and crack it. unlikely to happen, but as kevin garnett says, anything is possible. you can't control for every variable, but i've made it difficult and tried to control for most.