Gun People: How will you answer?
The spouse directed my attention to a recent news event that saw me seeing RED once again about the "gun" and the endless problems associated with it in this country.
A little background:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/14/us/g … earms.html
https://www.wdsu.com/article/georgia-bo … /38426990#
The tragic story of the 13 year old kid who was arrested associated with the accidental shooting of his sister.
1. It should be illegal to obtain any gun parts or components for assembly on line or otherwise as a way to circumvent proper procedures to obtaining a weapon, background checks, etc. Assembled weapons without serial numbers that identify them are easily used for crimes.
2 it is not fair to blame all of this on a 13 year old. Again, I have no sympathy for parents that are "asleep at the switch". Both should be arrested and considered accessories to the crime as well as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. This "I did not know" stuff does not cut it. How could a 13 year old do all of this while their parents were unaware?
3. Those that acquire guns from the assemblers should be arrested as well, this kind of circumvention of proper procedures cannot be tolerated.
4. This pieces and parts industry should be shut down, unless every component part sold is identified with a serial number. They may not be sold "on line" no more than I can buy a case of Jim Beam "on line".
This society continues to be a mess, with conservatives always griping about liberals taking their guns meanwhile a gangster mode exists at the very foundation of this society and culture. Yet, at the same time conservatives are so concerned not about the gun but keeping them from improper hands, how are their arguments consistent?
What do the "gun people" propose be done?Guns are not allowed in our 20 member unvaccinated community. Only solution I can imagine is when military and police get rid of their gun so will the public. Now try to be an unarmed man and take their gun away, can one do that ?
Thanks, Castle.
I am for the 2nd Amendment, but the right to obtain weapons is not open to either minors or felons. I am not for disarming people, just providing a level of discretion in this society that I would get if I buy a chocolate malt.Really? You're not grossly exaggerating? You would approve of gun laws equivalent to those about buying a chocolate malt?
Our would you actually saddle potential gun owners with such restrictive laws they simply give up on their rights?What restrictive laws are you associating with my complaint?
How about laws requiring payments of as much as the cost of the gun to do background checks? Or those checks that take a month or more? How about requirements that result in the cost of the gun being dwarfed by costs to store it? Laws that prohibit carrying the gun anywhere at all?
Lots and lots of laws that simply make owning or purchasing a gun beyond the financial means of most people. Or that make it such a hassle that it just isn't worth it.
But you didn't respond to the question about the (possible) exaggeration comparing it to buying a malt?Yes, it is an exaggeration that drives in a point.
I have to see how much does it cost to do background checks relative to the cost of the gun. How long is the actual delay, have you experienced this yourself? Are you not the one that is concerned about mentally ill people and such acquiring a gun, well how do we begin to screen then, without a background check? I can say the same thing about a car, insurance maintenance costs, etc. does that keep you from buying one?
With Rights come responsibilities. How many other life purchases are not such that you can acquire the purchased item immediately without niceties being observed?
That is the world in which we live, today because of dangers that come from the least expected avenue.
'Now try to be an unarmed man and take their guns away can one do it'? Castle, tell us a precedent among the nations of the world. Would the Canadanian armd force, navy, air force, police, and such other related para-military forces, give in if your Prime Minister gives the order for disarming? Then what would happen if hostile neighbouring nations or so invade Canada? I think your suggestion's a mistake?
US has 50% of the entire planet's war budget with only 4% of the worlds population. Used mainly for offensive invading of other countries every year. Plus 25% of the worlds prisoners. I'm suggesting they lower their military complex arms each stage. Like their nuclear weapons at each stage of the game as for the public to lower their guns.
The States got stars and stripes on their flag. Canada has a leaf. We have the longest coastline in the world and Canada owns 5 military submarines, of 3 submarine are in an amusement park in Edmonton mall.Castlepaloma, you're not answering my question. Looks like you're diverting. Is Canada armed forces completely disarmed as you suggested? That's the point.
Yes, Canada has enough fighting men like hockey players and hunters to protect our waters from US theift and invasion. We beat them before.
We all have a point, I must have one too. Canada has not been in a war since 1812. It wasn't even a country back then.
Canadians are lovers, not fighter, although lately we are turning iWe all have a point, I must have one too. Canada has not been in a war since 1812. It wasn't even a country back then.
Canadians are lovers, not fighter, although lately we are turning in communistWhy repeat yourself? If you had a point, why not directed it at my question?
Again, I choice to ignored you...you're diverting from gun violence to hokey playing.
Our Canadain white hokey players are not so cheesy, feeble and old-fashioned sentimental.
Our hockey players are very ruggedness tough men and the women are too.
Canadain public has plenty of guns per capita more than European countries except Switzerland.
It's the white honkey billionaire players we all have to watch out for.
I won't lay victim to these Sharks because I'm a fish who can swim with them and know where they are in order not to be eaten.'Canadian public has plenty of guns per capita more than Europeans countries except Switzerland' Beware all, Castlepaloma has a gun to the kill! Castle, don't you suggested disarming the military? And with the same voice, I can infer you retain a gun? Oh, how terrible and awful.
Not ever owned a gun, even as a child. Every kid wanted to be a cowboy, so I was the only Indian. In cowboys and lndains war games. In history the bow and arrow was king until the Six shooter, then the 2nd amendment should have changed.. At age 7 did have army toys, then threw out all my toys into the garbage, due to the insanity about it all. Then start my journey with an adult view in life with a childlike curiously for everything.
Live and let live is my motto. I don't try to stop others with guns. I'll give them a short visit won't hangout. Our 20 member community agrees to no guns no vaccines. That is my fit in life, no violence and no sickos hanging out with.That's funny, even I wanted to be a "cowboy". Nobody wanted to be an Indian when we played our games as kids. Here I am taking the side and role of the oppressor and not even being aware of it.
The ability of the powers that be to brainwash people into believing light is darkness and vice versa, is quite astonishing.
The Canadians have more guns, yet, per capita, still far less gun related homicides. How have the Canadians avoided the fate of their neighbors to the South?
A lot farmer have guns for wildlife attacking their livestock. Alot of wildlife and alot of hunters. You don't see guns in public, just the cops.
Most Canadain have a good laugh at Americans gun crazed. Exspeically the time in Detroit I saw a man in a waterpark slide down a water slide with a gun attached to his side.
Only in the States people will stay away from the Beach water because of a Jaw"s movie. Or carry a gun because of police and war movie's.
I open my door and hear crickets.Castle, Castle, behold me. Eh he ah! When should you make yourself zerious? I'm sending mosquitoes on your way! Hear them too. It's live and let live!
Mosquitoes will freeze in the mail.
Don't know why your not like most Afri-cans who don't want the jab. Probably jadded from the failures of malaria and aids vaccines.
Why be a Afri- can't rather than except them for being smarter with the lowest covid deaths by far in the world.
Adding the light for enlightenment that kills covid most.Castle, is it reasonable to send mosquitoes by mail? Nope, unless you've got to live in a cargo plane. And, that I'll not do. Instead, in the natural environment, they'll come up. They're on they way already. Hope you hear they buzzling sound? And take cover, Castle. And by the way, I've had my jabs four months ago. Have you a change of mind for people to get vaccinted? How come?
I produce beetles for recycling food for my plants and sell them to pet store. Mailing them will kill them from extreme cold and along with complicated flights from Nigeria. You know I don't like killing unless it's being eaten.
We don't allow vaxxers into our green eco village anymore, they carry too many variants.
Looks like no gun people around. They would have to make sense only using their words, which could not ever hurt me.
Now where is Nathan when the gun lovers come out????. Probably back to to the safety salvery of vaccines madates.
Castlepaloma has throw an hammer in the forum...closing to 'close to reply'.
Some gun lovers say hammers kill more than guns. If that were true the God of Thor would control all the military of the world rather than guns doing 85% of the killing. Vaccines and guns obcession by their lethal weapons can just kill each other. Wail I stay out of their way and their cross fires. Live by the sword, die by the sword. In my world there is no guns nor vaccines, nobody has been harmed by neither so far. We have smarter ways of dealing with totalitarianism.
Castlepaloma, this forum has nothing to do with the covid vaccine; it’s about gun violence in the USA. So making up lies that the covid vaccines kills and is thus as lethal as guns is tasteless.
As far as gun murders and suicide worldwide it's only 250.000 a year. This all gun murders has shyrocketing along suicides with covid deaths since the Vaccines invasion.
Vaccines related covid deaths and worldwide damage of effects is far worst than gunsCastle, where are the vaccine death statistics?
Covid deaths could reach 3 million this year compared to gun murders of a few 100s thousands. The covid virus is the new champion weapon for depopulation of the earth . That's not according for all the other Greater ways it's killing us on many levels in society.
Yep, the covid virus has killed over 3 million; and it would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the vaccines; but this forum is about gun violence, not a place for you to continue with your crusade (your personal campaign to discourage people from taking the vaccine).
Since I have a mountain of evidence the wealthy Nazi likes are at it again.
Self governing guns are better alternatives than safety slave take over.
I'm ready with without guns , where too many are not.
No country in their right mind would ever attack the US. The US worst enemy is their own US Government Tyranny as all Governments are corrupted in degrees.
The worldwide invasion of our freedoms and human rights is this one world order by this best tool weapon of vaccines. So US citizens, this is the best reason for the public to keep their guns and the most dangerous kind by the invading madates of any kind. Unless illegal Aliens attack, and I don't mean the Mexican kind.I can't live a lie, so that is out. I do make mistakes like anyone else. That could be tasteless for billionaire.
Actually, Castlepaloma, I've argued bitterly against the gun people in the USA in a number of forums in the past; but being from the UK it's not my culture (thankfully) and I do have better things to do than fight other peoples wars all the time.
Nevertheless, I do give Credence, and others who are willing to take on the might of the gun people, all my sympathy.
Arthur (aka Nathanville)Talking to gun lovers is less fruitful than the energy it's worth, so do I agree, I will visit yet won't hang around in case someone gets trigger happy over their top killing machine. I've actually had deaths threats on line.
Yet nothing overall tops the destruction of..... COVID 19!!!! Tyranny.Castlepaloma, this forum is about gun violence in America, not a place for you to continue your personal crusade of trying to convince other people not to get vaccinated.
Thank you, Arthur, I don't have to tell you about the myriad of excuses our gun people have to try to explain the difference in gun violence between our two societies, they and there are not even rational.
Thanks for posting Cred. Tragic. I wonder why those who bought from him did not do it themselves since it is so easy to obtain the parts online. From poking about the websites selling parts and means advertise it is cheap to build them.
Personally being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment I am against 'Ghost Guns'. I think it only circumvents the system with the threat of being someone who can't legitimately buy one. For instance with mental illness, yet not saying they use them or cause harm. It is not uncommon in the local news here in San Diego area to hear it was a 'Ghost Gun' used in something.Thank you, Tsmog.
You don't have to be against the 2nd Amendment for a society to take a responsible view of firearm proliferation. No more than being against Prohibition means that a 10 year old can buy Jack Daniels at the liquor store. Why is that concept so hard for "gun people" to understand?
From your second link (the first is behind a paywall), the whole thing was rife with illegal activity. The laws are not being enforced, so what more do you want? More laws that we won't enforce? More obstructions thrown up so law abiding people cannot exercise their rights?
Thanks for your input, Wilderness, I did not know about the paywall. I don't pay them anything. If I paid for every publication where I had an interest, I would be flat broke.
Selling parts and pieces for guns without serial numbers should be unlawful in itself. What law is there to enforce as these part peddler people have been functioning within the purview of the laws as currently written?
Obviously, we need more laws, sterner enforcement and penalties with teeth.Will a serial number on a gun part prevent a single loss of life? I don't, for the life of me, see how that will prevent murders. Do you?
If you can find the gun used in a murder (often a pretty big "if") then you might find the owner...if it hasn't been stolen. And if you find the owner you might get a conviction of murder. And if you do that you might keep him from murdering someone else...except that the vast majority of gun owners, and even murderers, will not repeat the offense. Some exceptions might by professional killers doing it for money, or gang members - do you really think a serial number will stop either one?We have spoken about this before.
Some criminals might be concerned about getting caught if their intent is premeditated. If the provision does not preclude the options of law abiding gun owners, why resist the provision to make it more difficult if not foolproof against the criminal?
Knowing that weapons can be traced may well discourage some from committing the crime, if not all, but some is better than none at all. Murderers certainly do not want to be caught, why would that not be a concern for them?
What do you want "gun people" to do? There are already gun laws that pertain to obtaining gun parts. There are already gun laws against all-plastic guns, and there are laws concerning complete receivers. What else would you suggest?
One look at your list suggests that you are firing on all emotional cylinders but only half of your reasoning cylinders.
#1 - There are laws concerning the important gun parts—the receiver. Also, do you really think criminals are worried about serial numbers?
#2 - This one is almost the best one. The stories I chased for information have no more details than the ones you linked. There doesn't seem to be any information about the "how" of how the guns were made. Were they 3-D printed? Were they made from online parts? Do you know these answers? I don't. Yet you don't hesitate to blame the parents for as being asleep at the wheel. Geez bud, you need to take a breath.
#3 - It is already against the law to buy a gun, (handgun), from an "assembler" without all the checks and hoops. I bet you knew that too.
#4 - Shut down the components industry? Does the same thought apply to all component parts of anything that could be dangerous? I think you can guess where that thought will lead. Also, one can buy Jim Beam online. Check out the Grizzly app.
You really `bared all' in those post. With nothing but the sketchiest details your progressiveness has you using a tragedy as a weapon. That ain't right.
But I think you are right in that conservatives are probably more concerned about keeping guns out of improper hands than they are about the guns themselves. You get 2 points for that.
GACmon GA, you can stop with the concept that everything that is not crimson red conservative has its foundation as an emotional argument.
Perhaps, you did not get the memo? An excerpt from the New York Times.
"Ghost guns, and the niche industry that produces them, have flourished because of a loophole in federal regulation: The parts used to build “privately made firearms” are classified as components, not actual guns, which means that online buyers are not required to undergo background checks or register the weapons."
Doesn't sound like a generally illegal practice to me.
1. Criminals are worried about getting caught, weapons without serial numbers cannot be traced.
2. Why does it matter how they are made? The average family generally do not have a 3D printer to manufacture gun parts, or are you going to debate this with me, as well?
3. The excerpt obviously indicated that much of this parts industry has enjoyed protection under the law. That should end.
4. You conservatives always express so much concern about "law and order". So, who is hamstringing law enforcement now? If it is illegal for a minor or felon to purchase a firearm, it has to be illegal for them to acquire component parts. We are asking for trouble, it is more than just a loophole it is a chasm.
I will check the Grizzly app and see what provisions are made to ensure that minors cannot buy.
The tragedy is a weapon, to warn people of loopholes in the current laws that are and will be again exploited with tragic consequences. No point in shooting the messenger, GA, as the message still stands.
Conservatives speak from both sides of their mouths opposed to guns in the improper hands but are so fussy about eliminating unnecessary loopholes that allow for that outcome.Now you are just showing your emotional attachment to this issue. (as mentioned)
How else do you explain your response of; "Conservative red" and "speak out of both sides of their mouth" when my response was neither partisan nor conservative-owned. You injected those and they are certainly not relevant to the facts discussed.
For instance, I didn't say ghost guns weren't a problem, and if you consider my "how was it made" point, it was directed at the event you posted about. In that context how it was made is very pertinent. Although 3-d printers are becoming a lot more present in homes than I think you realize, (Google "Glowforge"), that was a question that would pertain to his parents' culpability. It would be hard to not notice one in the house, but it is probably easy for a savvy 13-year-old to order and receive small stuff online and when the parents were at work or done at and sent to a friend's house. It wasn't sharpshooting or deflecting, or nit-picking.
That thought segues into your assumption', (your acceptance that the NYT blurb "obviously indicates"), about the gun parts industry enjoying protection under law. If you look into the details of that blurb you find that, of course, gun parts are considered components. What else would you call a sling swivel or a scope mount or a spring-loaded tubular magazine or even a gun barrel? Or any of the multiple other screws and pieces used to make a gun? They are components. But, unlimited access to those components by anyone will never make a gun that shoots—without the one vital component that pulls them all together and makes a gun.
That component, (yep, it's a component too), the receiver, (a complete receiver), is already subject to the very laws you are demanding—they must have serial numbers and all the other gun-purchase requirements.
*I just grabbed that from memory. Some details may be specifically wrong but I think the explained concept is right And if there are other loopholes that fit that inference I might find some agreement with you.
No emotion or party, or ideology in that statement. If you check it out I think you will find that it is not general practice to illegally sell completed receivers. As your blurb apparently infers to you.
On the bright side, I'm sure more details will come out concerning how he built these guns and we will get to see just how right or wrong we might be.
Is it necessary to say I am not defending this kid, his parents, or anything about how the gun was built? I am just grabbing you by the belt before you fall off of this cliff of assumptions you are standing on. ;-)
GAIt is not emotional at all, most conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to this issue.
3D printers that can make components to the standards needed in a firearm, did not think that I could buy that at the neighborhood Walmart? Available certainly does not mean "common".
The story talked about a kid that makes a working firearm solely from component parts bought with a credit card on line. What am I missing?
The article seemed to imply that this was not the first incident where the kid ordered components in this way.
I had to field strip m-1 and m-14 rifles while in military training. Why would you tell me that a parts dealer would waste his time or that of a customer by not providing complete components to make for an operational weapon? The receiver portion has a loophole that one does have to be too clever to take advantage of. That need to be plugged. Your opinion is contrary to what was defined in the article. I am not the expert.
That is not mentioned in the article, that the part peddlers according to you, in actuality, cannot, thru providing component parts, make assembly of a fully functional firearm possible? A 13 year old managed to do it and that is a warning sign enough. That is contrary to the NYT article.
I used the NYT as a source, which I consider reliable. I read two articles that report the same thing, what are you reading that is so contrary?
If I can't trust the NYT, who can I trust? Certainly not right wing media.
Still, no excuse for the parent, would you allow your kid access to your credit card? And even if they did use it without permission, do you not check statements every month? I am tired of adults making excuses for wayward kids, that they simply choose not to properly supervise. It is a Stalag 13 scenario that is totally ridiculous
--------
To vindicate you somewhat I offer this
-------
A Deadly Loophole
The decades-long debate over gun control in Washington revolves around the regulation of traditional firearms. Ghost guns pose a more elemental question: What makes a gun a gun?
Every semiautomatic weapon consists of two main parts: the movable upper “slide,” which sits on the barrel of a pistol, and the “receiver” or “frame” — the lower part to which almost everything else, including the trigger and magazine, can be attached and made functional after drilling a few holes and filing a groove into an unfinished, factory-produced frame.
Under federal law, any frame or receiver considered 80 percent finished is a functional firearm subject to the same regulations as a fully assembled gun. If it is less than 80 percent finished, it is not subject to the same federal safeguards.
Even so, an experienced amateur can make the minor modifications needed to turn it into a working firearm in less than an hour.
-----
So yes, the receiver issue is valid but can be circumvented much easier than the middle class family can obtain a 3D printer to make illicit weapons.
If you took the time to read the entire article, you should be able to identify this issue as a serious problem.That the gun parts were bought online with a credit card must be some of that "new information" I spoke of. I did not see it in any of the early articles I checked. So we can ditch any 3-D printer thoughts and move on to what parts the kid bought and how he modified them.
Is there any information on that yet? We seem to have an understanding that complete receivers are regulated, so now we are left to find out how much ingenuity this kid had to modify an incomplete receiver to make a working receiver. My impression is that it requires precise drill press and milling or filing work to complete one. I wonder how the kid did it?
It looks like to plug the loophole that allows "ingenuity" to complete a receiver will require either regulating ingenuity or banning parts sales altogether. Do you have a different idea?
I couldn't read the NYT article, (paywall issue), but I did ask Google for other sources, and I did completely read all of those articles.
Finally, you have to stop this "hypocrite" stuff. Thinking folks are hypocritical just because they don't agree with you isn't a very flattering position. It points to a closed mind, as I read it.
Consider the known facts you are using for the basis of your hypocrite claim: a kid made a gun with incomplete parts bought online, he has done this before, and a shot from his homemade gun killed his sister. That is all you know right now. And from that, you have deemed conservatives hypocritical on the issue just because we don't agree with your extrapolation of those scanty details.
GA"Finally, you have to stop this "hypocrite" stuff. Thinking folks are hypocritical just because they don't agree with you isn't a very flattering position. It points to a closed mind, as I read it."
This entire thread has been inundated with conservative reasoning and logic, yeah, right..... This is how I "read it".
1. Much of this thread has focused on conservatives arguing that the difference in the quantity of gun violence between the US and our friends across the pond, the United Kingdom, is due to the immigration crisis on our southern border. That is specious as this society has always been more violent than England even when we did not have a southern border.
Irrational argument number 1.
In addition it has to makes sense that there is far more driving this unfortunate statistic than immigration, legal or otherwise from the South.
--------------
Another conservative tells me that violence from a claw hammer and from a gun is equivalent. That people can be murdered with claw hammers, cars and Sterling silver pickle forks. Well, when I send my 13 year old nephew to the hardware store to get a claw hammer, he comes home with it. But if I need a .38 special, I have to buy it myself. So they are both "tools" that can kill, but society makes a distinction between one and the other. Why do you think that is?
Irrational argument No. 2
-----------------
I have listened to conservatives tell me the issue is not the gun but the criminal. That they are "overwhelmed" at the waiting periods, background checks, etc. But, while they gripe about this, they say that they want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminal. How is that done without screening at the point of purchase? Yet, they have resisted every attempt at registration and screening so that those with a criminal background can be identified. So, who gets to have their cake and eat it, too? You can't have it both ways.
Irrational argument No. 3
With that, 3 strikes and you are out......"Another conservative tells me that violence from a claw hammer and from a gun is equivalent."
I really don't think the dead, or their loved ones, care one iota whether the murderer used a claw hammer or a gun. Do you? They are, then, pretty much equivalent in the eyes of the people that paid the price. (Did you know that more people are murdered with blunt objects {your claw hammer} than with all long guns combined, including that dreadful "assault rifle" the military doesn't use?)It appears you have abandoned the topic of your OP in order to have another go at gun-bashing conservatives.
Speaking of irrational . . . you post about a specific event, but with so few known details your direction has been unrelated to your OP.
You say it should be illegal to buy these critical parts, (receivers), but when it is pointed out that it already is illegal, you call opposition to your assumptions just conservative thinking and logic.
You say conservatives point to the issue being the user, not the tool, yet you are unable to refute that truth. You complain about conservative comparisons of guns and hammers while you do the same thing—equating an illegal use of a regulated component with unregulated use. At least the point, (the danger), of the gun/hammer comparisons are factual.
You complain about conservative resistance to background checks and screening when we already have extensive background check and screening regulations that, (I think), most conservatives abide by and support. Your complaint seems to boil down to us just not agreeing with your ideas for regulation and screening.
And look at your ideas: It should be illegal to be able to buy certain gun parts, (receivers), online. It already is and conservatives follow those regulations.
There are already laws and regulations against everything you are complaining about, yet you ignore that to complain about conservative logic.
Your complaint should be with the lawbreakers, not conservative logic.
Follow your own logic to its theoretical end and see if you find an acceptable, (to you), solution that does not result in a gun ban, or UK-type laws that can arrest kids for playing James Bond games with toy guns.
Considering the few facts that were known when you started this: a minor made a pistol, he made it from at least one illegally obtained component, and he shot his sister, I don't see anything wrong with the conservative logic; at least two illegal acts were committed by a minor, the minor was arrested, our laws were enforced. What more do you want?
GAI have not abandoned my topic, it is all part of the same theme.
The point I made and which I clearly excerpted to you is that obtaining these parts is not illegal do not require serial numbers and presents a loophole to acquiring a weapon.
Yes, the "receiver" makes it all go and it has to have a serial number only if it is 80 percent complete or more. Obviously, a receiver was sent to the boy, but was not marked because it was not complete to the point where it required a serial number. A clever boy, made minor adjustment to make the receiver serviceable and thus circumvented this would be impediment.
----
Deputy Sheriff Pounds called the issue of ghost guns a "super big deal," adding, "there's no serial number, you can't trace that gun."
"It's real critical, and it's a bad thing for law enforcement all over the world," he said. "You can order everything you need to make that gun off of the internet and make it — and it will fire."
"Every semiautomatic weapon consists of two main parts: the movable upper “slide,” which sits on the barrel of a pistol, and the “receiver” or “frame” — the lower part to which almost everything else, including the trigger and magazine, can be attached and made functional after drilling a few holes and filing a groove into an unfinished, factory-produced frame.
Under federal law, any frame or receiver considered 80 percent finished is a functional firearm subject to the same regulations as a fully assembled gun. If it is less than 80 percent finished, it is not subject to the same federal safeguards.
Even so, an experienced amateur can make the minor modifications needed to turn it into a working firearm in less than an hour."
-------
Obviously, all these parts have been ordered by the boy On Line, and if the receiver part was provided, which obviously it has been, it was less than 80 percent complete and did have to be marked according to Federal Law. So what am I missing here?
Can I presume that you know more than the law enforcement in the field?
"You say conservatives point to the issue being the user, not the tool, yet you are unable to refute that truth. You complain about conservative comparisons of guns and hammers while you do the same thing—equating an illegal use of a regulated component with unregulated use. At least the point, (the danger), of the gun/hammer comparisons are factual"
-------
Still you did not answer my question, why the difference in the rules of access to the different "tools" that either can be used to kill?
Yes, I bash conservatives and point out areas of inconsistency and unreasonableness, no less than you and your "red gang" do the same regarding progressive ideas and thinking, right? I am self appointed as somebody has to do it.
My IDEAS about regulation and screening is only that is it necessary. Don't tell me that MANY conservatives do not complain about this, they do. I think Wilderness can relate to that attitude as I pick up much of it in our correspondence.
My complaint is with both lawbreakers and conservative logic as their logic makes it more difficult to identify lawbreakers and their fear of gun control makes it all the more likely that reasonable safeguards never see the light of day.
--------
What do I want?
Receiver assembly units regardless of level of completion have to all have a serial numbers or they are not available for sale.
That will take some of the wind from the sails of the clever or resourceful.
All the media I access say that this is a big problem, you don't agree?A ghost gun is a do-it-yourself, homemade gun made from easy-to-get building blocks that can be purchased with no background check and no questions asked. These guns are made by an individual, not a federally licensed manufacturer or importer. Ghost guns are the fastest-growing gun safety problem facing our country.
I went to the University of YouTube. Being more of an inventor for high effective urban farming and tiny houses. I can invision a small gang of dumb criminals could figure out how to put this together. Or an average smart criminal. Covid has cause crime to go skyrocketing, due to the collapsing economy This could be a real problem. Or maybe not so much if storm troopers have a door to door apocalypse attack with blow vaccines darts. And public hands are not tied.Don't presume anything. I am sticking to the "receiver" issue because that part seems cut and dry. It is illegal for a minor to buy a complete one.
Also, did you mean "did not" require marking?
Relative to your quote it appears the, (and your), controversy is about the degree of completion that dictates regulation. The 80% is mentioned as the current level. Should that be lower? I think we need to look at the specifics to know that, and I haven't. But I did take a glance at what "minor modifications" are needed to do the other 20%.
Check this out How to machine an 80% lower receiver
I think you will see how deceptive your blurb of "an experienced amateur can make the minor modifications needed to turn it into a working firearm in less than an hour" really is. No kid is going to do these modifications with just dad's hand drill.
As you can see from the video. the 80% receiver is essentially a formed block of aluminum. That seems fair to me, what about you?
GAThank you, isn't that something, on line instructions that allow people to circumvent the law. So, the modifications are certainly legal and yes, it seem a bit much for a 13 year old boy, but I have witnessed stranger things.
Either of the articles indicate that these ghost guns are more than an inconvenience aberration for law enforcement but are plentiful and growing. So, there seems to be this capability amongmany, how many prodigies exist amongst them? With the machine tools involved, it would seem that some adult knew about it.
Unless, the statement from NYT was a boldface lie, which is not substantiated, we cannot deny that the kid did in fact accomplish what would seem impossible for young kid on its face. What other explanation is there?Don't forget, my comments aren't about the existence or acquisition of ghost guns, it is about this kid and this one incident.
If I look at your demand that all receivers be regulated would you also regulate the molds used to cast the blank receiver, (it appears that casting the mold would be easier than completing one)? Or the milling machines to machine one, (if they are machined instead of cast)?
Does the NYT say the kid completed the receiver, or just that he built the gun? We probably shouldn't make assumptions until we know.
Yep, if the kid did do it he probably is very handy and clever. Typical for a 13-year-old?
As a possible thought, would you consider it okay for an authentic amateur, (or professional), gunsmith to complete a receiver for a personal rifle? Would you want it required that the state give permission, (aka regulate), for anyone to make a gun, of any kind—period!
[EDIT] What do you mean about circumventing the law/ It isn't illegal to complete a receiver—yet.
GAI am following your point, has far does my regulatory frenzy go?
I am not qualified to say where the line needs to drawn, until then no receivers, parts and components associated with receivers are sold without serial numbers. That ought to put the kabosh on all of this all at once.
There are 13 year olds that have college degrees, so what is really beyond their capabilities? While the skills to do this are not common among those so young, it is not outside the realm of possibility.
While the articles are short on the details regarding how the kid did this, it could be inferred based on information in the the article that says that this is not the first weapon that he has assembled.
Why would anyone give the kid a receiver assembly that the kid himself did not have to modify, just so he can put the rest of the weapon together? If it were that easy, why go through and pay the kid for the service? The bad guys were paying for skills that obviously none of them had.
Yes, it is part of the firewall by the gun lobby, and I have read this, to resist any restriction imposed upon the public in this area.
So, we are in a quagmire of our own making and it should shame us all that such a loophole has been legal such that you could drive a Mack Truck through. And we wonder where a large portion of our gun problems come from?
Biden has vowed to put the kibosh on all of this and it would not be too soon for me.
"As a possible thought, would you consider it okay for an authentic amateur, (or professional), gunsmith to complete a receiver for a personal rifle? Would you want it required that the state give permission, (aka regulate), for anyone to make a gun, of any kind—period!"
Good question. I don't want to say that people should not have the right to manufacture their own gun, that puts me on a slippery slope that I just as soon not travel. But I can take issue with their selling it.
It is just reassuring that your everyday Joe does not have the skills nor facilities to manufacture a gun at home, even with all of these fancy 3D printers. But there will have to come legislation at some point to address this as well.I also think that the last question was a good one. And you have been on that slippery slope from the beginning. First, you want all aspects regulated, and now you worry about how far to go with your thoughts, (you don't want to say that people can't).
I think we are making progress. I stumbled across another video that I think would interest and inform you. The title is true, but clickbait. The video is serious and informative. And . . . I think it exemplifies "conservative logic." (so it should help you zero in on what this logic you detest really is. ;-)
[EDIT] Ooops, forgot about your first point. You say you aren't qualified to draw the line and until then . . . People that are qualified have drawn the line—our lawmakers.
Let me know what you think.
GAYour link is missing, and my desire to regulate sales of weapons requiring serial numbers is consistent with what is required of all gun manufacturers large or small by current law and that is reasonable and not "over regulating".
I know where to draw the line, and there is no question that there IS a "line".But, you said you didn't know where to draw the line?
Anyway, here is that link: How to Stay Out of Prison When Building a Rifle at Home Give it a chance before you dismiss it.
The law says 80%, so, if you're good with the laws then you're good with that now?
Are you playing with me again?
GAI will read, my satisfaction with current serial numbers arrangement does not mean that that the law should not become more stringent to control another rising issue not conceived of in the past.
We need to make changes, as this crisis seems to indicate.
The LINE in this topic is drawn where all gun manufacturers that intend to sell or distribute beyond private use must identify weapons with serial numbers. We need to amend the law making it far more difficult to make a finished weapons acquired from parts that do not have serial numbers. How that done specifically? I am not qualified to know, except that it needs to be done.Very interesting the video. But I agree with the lady's point 1, build only for yourself with no intent to sell or distribute, and you have no problems with me. It seems to me that even the DIY people will more probably acquire a receiver unit that is already serialized anyway and prepared for assembly.
I am amazed at all the regulations and such associated with owning a gun. I am not concerned with aesthetic modifications to weapons, but want to prohibit silencers and bump stocks, turning semis into fully automatic fire characteristics.
Gun people do get involved with their passions. The hassles about the length and all of that seem superfluous. I might have problems with magazines as it is odd to consider a weapon with a hundred round magazine as not high capacity. But again, that is Idaho, well outside the boundary of civilization. I am not impressed by "scary" appearance and "cool" looks. Seems like a pretty adolescent sort of pursuit to me.
I know little about the process but the video's first impression is there are an awful lot of rules and expenses, waiting times, etc, this is as Wilderness once mentioned.
If it were me, I would separate the cosmetic stuff from the essential features that regulators need to be aware of, and make some of the process from the standpoint of certain concerns, less burdensome.
Such is my opinion, from a West Coast Liberal, the Conservative's greatest nightmare.
I would have much more fun designing and building a directed energy weapon."If it were me, I would separate the cosmetic stuff from the essential features that regulators need to be aware of, and make some of the process from the standpoint of certain concerns, less burdensome."
Unfortunately, if this is done the entire "assault weapons" thing deteriorates and disappears, and the scare factor of that terminology has been most useful in scaring people to demand more laws on those simple hunting rifles.
Given the necessity of politics in the discussion, and the policy there of presenting emotional rather than factual statements, it is impossible to remove the cosmetic from the features.Your directed energy gun would be serialized, wouldn't it?
I also found the video informative, relative to some of the gun laws involved. Just think about the legal logic that a gun with a suppresser is seen, (and taxed), as two guns by our laws.
GA
If you answered elsewhere and I missed it apologize, but what is the reasoning that having a serial number will save lives? Surely you don't think that if a gun has a serial number no one will use it to murder with!
Don't forget that guns can be identified with a spent bullet, and that we already know who that gun was sold to (if sold legally, which most of them aren't). Does that not satisfy any possible argument for saving lives that a serial number does?Maybe, I missed your inquiry. Is there no benefit in marking waeapons so they could be identified with an owner and the victim receiving justice by apprehending criminals after a crime has been committed? If you were a criminal, would it not concern you if there were physical evidence linking you to a shooting where you could be idenfied and arrested? Wouldn't make one more likely to commit a crime if they could be sure that they would get away with it?
Deterrence acts as a road block to the nefarious side of human nature. If you knew that you could be audited by the IRS, that may be an incentive for you to pay your taxes, when otherwise you might not. Why should you, if there is no one following and looking over your shoulder?
Deterrent is a vital tool in encouraging proper behavior rather than the contrary.
While the type of gun can be idenfied by a spent round, can that identify the owner of the gun? It is only thru registration that we know who the weapon belongs to. I was of the opinion that most gun owners are law abiding citizens, so more guns could be identified, rather than otherwise.Then serial numbers, and registration, is not about saving lives; it is only about catching a criminal an punishing them.
I would disagree that these things will significantly deter the crime of murder. First, precious few murders are committed by the (legal) owner of a gun; they are done by people that stole their gun, imported it illegally or in some other manner obtained that gun illegally. Adding serial numbers to every piece of a gun will add nothing to either save lives OR the ability to find a murderer. In addition, I would comment that catching a murderer using a legally purchased gun won't save a single life; those few legal owners that murder in a fit of passion are not going to repeat their crime so locking them away accomplishes nothing. Nor will it prevent another person from murdering in a rage induced crime, for they don't care at the moment what will happen to them.
Of course, serial numbers and registration have another effect, for they raise the obvious specter of fear by gun owners that their guns will be confiscated. This is a very real fear, for the thrust of the gun control nuts shows no sign of ever ending and there is always another attempt to do just that; Australia is an obvious example as they confiscated all the semi-automatic weapons in the country (and then watched as their homicide rate only continued the same slow slide it had already been on - the results of their Great Gun Buyback was to spend a lot of money, nothing else).
Given that, won't the response be to buy more guns without registering them? Won't registration produce the opposite effect than what was desired? Perhaps if the gun control debate would just end, with only reasonable efforts to actually control rather than take guns it would be useful, but as long as there are cries and demands to take the guns away, to disarm Americans, it seems to me that the obvious result will be people bypassing the law at every opportunity.But catching a criminal and punishing him or her at least makes certain that they will not kill again with impunity, perhaps not much of a consolation prize, but unti "Minority Report" becomes a reality, it is the best we can do. Something in the right direction is always better than nothing at all.
And does not have to be "significant" to still have an effect. I differ with you in believing that serial numbers has and can contribute to apprehending criminals, albeit not perfect.
Would we be better off if I could buy my gun at the corner department store without registration or background checks and just shoot my neighbor, and leave law enforcement without a trace of my culpability in the crime? No clues or evidence that would aid in catching me. It is not always about crimes of passion but premeditation, what is to keep a hit man, mob killer or a gang member from striking again?
---
"The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents."
There are more guns in this country than people, that is not true in Australia. I think that such a task of disarming a society with so many firearms is an exercise in futility. It is simply not a realistic concern.
I have no dispute with the idea of controlling guns verses taking them, the problem with our opposing sides is often times what one would consider control, others would consider the preamble of a scheme to take them.
While not wanting to take the gun, reasonable controls are not out of line and are necessary. Those controls can be employed without impinging upon the rights of law abiding people to have one.Credence, I may agree with your last paragraph.
But in my country Nigeria, the right to own guns privately has been withdrawn some twenty years ago.
That just said guns are now in possession in the hands of criminals like the Boko Haran sects.
Those it has been said were funded by the politician.
The question now is how to get rid of the guns in the hands of these criminal elements.Miebakagh,
Thank you for your comment.
The experience of your country is a good reason for the support of the second amendment in the United States and the rights of citizens to bear arms.Credence, in that case, the cry for self-defense is becoming too common in Nigeria.
The right to bear arms is what everyone wants.
As the current Nigerian President with his shout of wahalahi(oh my God) whenever the terrorist strike deads an innocent citizen.Yes, i have heard information that Nigeria has been run by these bandits. In the face of a far more dire situation than we have in the United States, it certainly could support private ownership as a matter of protection against a manancing threat.
"While not wanting to take the gun, reasonable controls are not out of line and are necessary. Those controls can be employed without impinging upon the rights of law abiding people to have one."
My question is...why? Why punish responsible gun owners? This is like every time there is a car crash, those in control believe it is time to punish responsible drivers for the actions of irresponsible drivers.
So, if there is legislation that will effectively take away guns from criminals who obtain them illegally and are used in close to 90 percent of shootings, I could support it.
I often wonder what such legislation would look like? Getting an unregistered gun is a felony. Being a convicted felon with a gun is a felony. Obtaining a gun using illegal methods is a felony. Stealing a gun is a felony.
This only illustrates how gun laws don't work to protect anyone but punish responsible gun owners.Well, Mike, in the real world, I have to pay car insurance, based on the amounts of accidents caused by those of my comparable age and profile. But, I never have had an accident. Certain drugs and medications are considered controlled substances and require ID and record as to whom the pharmacy dispenses them to. That is there because many have abused the medications, etc. I do not have an intent to break the law but I am subject to the same inconvenience all the same.
The fact that firearms are regulated and require background checks prior to purchase is not punishment.
So, howmdo you identify these criminals? If they are on parole and not allowed to possess a firearm, how does a merchant identify such a person that wants to buy a pistol? He or she is not going to tell you that they are prohibited from purchase. Without identification, you can neither take nor prevent the sale of weapons to criminals.
The litany of examples you provide as to what constitutes felonious behavior under our laws are noted. What chance is there at all to identify the law breakers without the precautions that I have mentioned?
Your arrival here, Mike, is fortuitous, perhaps you can answer the question that have been avoided by other pro-gun enthusiasts.
1. Much of this thread has focused on conservatives arguing that the difference in the quantity of gun violence between the US and our friends across the pond, the United Kingdom, is due to the immigration crisis on our southern border. That is specious as this society has always been more violent than England even when we did not have a southern border.
Irrational argument number 1.
In addition it has to makes sense that there is far more driving this unfortunate statistic than immigration, legal or otherwise from the South.
--------------
Another conservative tells me that violence from a claw hammer and from a gun is equivalent. That people can be murdered with claw hammers, cars and Sterling silver pickle forks. Well, when I send my 13 year old nephew to the hardware store to get a claw hammer, he comes home with it. But if I need a .38 special, I have to buy it myself. So they are both "tools" that can kill, but society makes a distinction between one and the other. Why do you think that is?
Irrational argument No. 2
-----------------
I have listened to conservatives tell me the issue is not the gun but the criminal. That they are "overwhelmed" at the waiting periods, background checks, etc. But, while they gripe about this, they say that they want to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminal. How is that done without screening at the point of purchase? Yet, they have resisted every attempt at registration and screening so that those with a criminal background can be identified. So, who gets to have their cake and eat it, too? You can't have it both ways.
Irrational argument No. 3"o, howmdo you identify these criminals? If they are on parole and not allowed to possess a firearm, how does a merchant identify such a person that wants to buy a pistol? He or she is not going to tell you that they are prohibited from purchase. Without identification, you can neither take nor prevent the sale of weapons to criminals."
This is my point. People who play by the rules and obey the laws are at a disadvantage to criminals. In order for a law-abiding citizen to defend themselves against a person with no regard for the law, they must jump through hoops. They are scorned when people who illegally obtain guns do something illegal.
So, I don't see any change from either side on the gun debate.
Unless there is an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who have no respect for the law, I can't support gun legislation. I think many of us view it as punishing those of us who follow the rules and obey the laws.But, Mike, you still have not told me HOW that can be done?
I don't know. Do you know? I think figuring this out is the responsibility of those who want gun legislation.
That's reality. Unless that happens, people will fight as hard as possible against gun legislation.
1. Because people believe it punishes law-abiding citizens.
2. Because there is no way to keep guns from criminals. Gun legislation will give the criminals an unfair advantage.
3. People believe they are fighting for their right to protect themselves and their families. At this point, it is personal which means emotional.
But you skimmed over the primary point: that people committing multiple murders do not use legally purchased guns. Therefore your efforts to catch them and stop a second murder by serial numbers recorded at purchase are fruitless.
You're right that the two sides differ on the ultimate goal of "control". But when control results in law abiding citizens foregoing their rights because of cost or effort, cost and effort that produce nothing but fewer guns, it is a problem. When your "controls" are such an onerous burden that the only result is fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens (criminals will ignore the laws, after all).
Yes, "reasonable" controls are not out of line. But what is "reasonable"? To double the cost of a gun? To make wait times in weeks to purchase? Such things certainly DO imping on the rights of law abiding citizens.
And that does not address the problem of major politicians doing whatever they can, openly and after stating their goal of disarmament, to take the guns from all people it gets much, much worse. When that is heard and seen the gun nuts run for cover while the gun control nuts pooh pooh it as not happening.OK, Wilderness what would be your position on what would be reasonable controls? We both agree that controls are necessary. I mean if you could write the legislation yourself.
From my side it appears that conservatives are virtually "having a cow" over a fear that has not really be realized in most of the country. You say that the libs' goal is total disarmament and we say that the conservatives want to revert to a Dodge City environment, where in that superlative example that I made earlier "it is no more difficult to obtain a gun than it is for me to order a chocolate malt".I did not say that the liberal goal is disarmament. I said that the goal of some liberals is disarmament. And it is.
But a background check is reasonable...up to a week, and free. Your example of car insurance is not applicable, as it is an "accident" that insurance is concerned with. No gun owner is going to murder by "accident" (although accidents do happen, they are not murder). Society wishes to protect itself, then let society bear the cost.
I feel that a magazine of 10 rounds is sufficient. I feel that no one on parole should have a gun. I like the idea of guns that won't fire outside the owners hand, but the tech is not there yet. I absolutely have no problem with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, but machine guns are, and should be, prohibited. I have no problem with gun owners having to get training...once in a lifetime and at no more than $100 cost to the gun owner. We're not talking learning to hit a target here - just safety and that can be done in a few hours. Should an owner wish further training on their specific weapon - say learning to strip and clean it, or learning to hit a target - then they can purchase that separately. I do not favor registration, but would accept (with large reservations) such a requirement - that is because of those few liberals and I expect the sentiment to grow with the tactics used by liberals in general.
The Dodge City environment is somewhat applicable, as almost anyone should be able to own a gun. An age limit of 18 to purchase is reasonable, and people convicted of violent crimes should never get one, but beyond that no restrictions.
And these are already in effect except the training. So...no more laws except a requirement for training.Well, Wilderness, we of the left try not to let the desires of the some be the policies of the many.
A lot of the gun guys would have a problem with being restricted to 10 round magazines, don't you think?
Your perspective here is not as unreasonable as I thought it would be.
So, in your world it just may prove a bit easier for me to get my chocolate malt, than to acquire a gun.
Handling guns is clearly a big problem everywhere. Unbalanced idiots, criminals, trigger happy police persons, and even sane lay idiots can trigger a shot for just the thril. Clearly, the control of guns by goveroents, and or it's agencies is the greatest problem. Laws and regulations were made. The rules still had many lope-holes. Critically, closed these lacuna, and you'll see the human kinds seems to evolve to see another minus challeges. Twice, I was denied my interest in becoming a son of the gun in my country, Nigeria.
Credence, I couldn't bring myself to feel sorry for the parents. If I had control over my 17 years old son, how come parents of 13 couldn't? Perhaps, they've give up all hopes on their childrens? Or the parents believe in gangs and had give leave to the boy?
Here is the answer you asked for.
You are really making a straw man argument. Negligent parents did not properly secure a firearm and a 13 year old kid negligently killed his sister.
This is not an argument that supports gun control but education and regulations on how to store guns. There is no reason why responsible gun owners should be penalized and deprived of their guns thanks to the actions of the few morons.
By your logic no one should have cars because some people drive drunk, or leave the keys out for their underage kids to get and drive when they shouldnt, or because like the Christmas Parade massacre, when a radical blm supporter plows into a group of people because he is upset over the Rittenhouse verdict.
If you have the moral compass you think you have when you advocate for gun control or elimination, please first apply your faulty logic to other identical scenarios and see where your logic leads you.Also should not be able to purchase repair parts for a car because it might then be used to again plow into a crowd and murder people.
Better not sell whetstones for your kitchen cutlery for the same reason.
Do not sell propane because someone will use it to forge a sword and murder people.
Do not sell anything at all because someone, somewhere, will use it as part of a weapon to murder someone. A pillowcase, for example, could encompass the pillow that is then used to smother a person.
That's where the logic leads. The only difference is that we have raised such fear of those awful black "assault rifles" that the military uses on a day to day basis that people will swallow it whole as a panacea to quell their fear.Using other objects to kill were not design to kill which is a lame excuse for self defense.
Policy and politics guns kill more than all US wars in the pass 50 years.
Plus 85% of kills in wars are from guns, hardly a fair comparative to a useful hammer or car.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … 3/9842346/And if we ignore that killers will kill with or without a gun then it will profit us to take the guns away.
IF we just assume that something is true when it is not, all will be well. At least in the land of make-believe - those of us living in the real world (every last person on earth) will find a very different story.Well, Castle, is did look like a lame excuse to me.
The 2nd amendment was made when Americans needed guns for food. Also it took a minute to load a musket gun and time for the man cheating on his wife a good running start.
US has more than doubled the murders than Canada with guns per capita. Canada has per capita has more murders than the adverage European country. Switzerland is the exception because they need to protect all those billionaires in their banks.
I can't imagine running out of ideas to killing anyone in my lifetime. Where assume leaders of the world kill millions. Not in my honesty , ethical. and dangerous free world.
Wilderness, your examples made me smile in that if I made a fake gun from wood, and painted it black to make it look realistic, and then carried it down the street, I could end up in prison for 12 months.
Two aspects of the gun laws in the UK that might put a smile on your face are:-
• The maximum sentence for carrying an imitation gun in a public place without reasonable excuse or lawful authority is 12 months imprisonment.
• Possession of firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence; maximum of 10 years prison.
So you don’t even need real gun parts in the UK to break the law; an imitation gun is just as illegal.Have ever kids been arrested for their toy guns?
Yep - as silly as it may seem!
For just a few examples:-
#1: 6th Nov 2021: Two children, aged 11 & 12, were arrested after motorists were threatened with a toy gun (painted black to give it a more authentic appearance) near a shopping centre.
Both were taken into custody, one for possessing an imitation gun and the other for knife possession.
The outcome is that the parents were spoken to by the police and referred to the ‘children’s services’.
#2: 28th July 2020: Following a call from a concerned member of the public to the police. The police raided the parents’ home of a 12 year old, where they found a plastic pellet gun that looked quite realistic; the kid was arrested, and handcuffed – but I don’t think the police took any further action.
#3: 3 Aug 2002: Three children, all aged 12, who were plying a ‘James Bond’ game with a plastic toy pistol, were surrounded by police from three patrol cars, arrested, fingerprinted and had their DNA taken. No further action was taken in that afterwards the ‘Association of Chief Police Officers’ in a press statement while calling “for tougher measures to outlaw realistic fake weapons”, added that “The onus should be on the officer to make a common sense judgement”.
Those are just three examples. I’m sure if you Google you’ll find more.
So yes, in the UK kids have been arrested for their toy guns.I'm taking notes of all such examples here.
I guess the gun laws in Nigeria are radically different to the two extremes; USA & UK?
Yes. But they're a carbon copy of the 'two extremes USA & UK,' with slight modifications.
Interesting; no doubt the modifications in the laws are sensible and logical, and presumably work. What, out of interest, are the modifications?
It's applying the laws to local settings.
Sounds more like thought police rather than realistic police.
Haven't seen you around before, welcome.
So, let's have at it.
I said nothing about eliminating the 2nd Amendment, it is just a fact that neither the First nor Second Amendment is absolute.
If it is illegal for a minor to obtain a firearm, it would follow that it would be illegal for a minor to obtain the parts to build one? Children cannot be allowed to purchase firearms, any responsible society acknowledges that.
And, yes, parents are responsible for the behavior of their minor children. I say that adult owners that are guilty of negligence regarding proper storage, access and availability of firearms to minors and people get hurt or injured because of it should be held accountable.
More of the Zero-sum game? No one is saying "take your gun away". But for those that are negligent or careless, I say "throw the book" at them. If you are careless or negligent, then you are not a responsible gun owner.
Cars are not guns, the Right seem to equate a firearm to a wrench. It is absurd logic as everybody knows that a firearm serves one purpose and one purpose only, and it is the most effective way to address that purpose. Far superior to any wrench.
I am not aware of the Christmass massacre thing, but have plenty of examples of excesses from the Right, that far exceed those from the other side.
You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing about gun elimination. But, do you consider prohibiting access to firearms by minors and felons gun control? Maybe, you need to go back to the drawing board and reassess a thing or two?Felons, or exfelons that have paid their debt? Felons whose crime had zero violence involved - white collar fraud, maybe? Would you remove their right to a gun simply as part of their punishment - a right that they likely never exercised and don't care about anyway?
Children - at 14 I was helping to provide meat for my family. Will you deny families that ability, simply because the age of the child? Would you deny the Olympic biathalon athlete the right to compete because they aren't 21...all to pretend you are saving a life because, well, because all Olympic athletes are murderers at heart?
Maybe you need to go back and reassess a thing or two, as in figuring out who the killers are, and if they will kill without a gun (as the Christmas parade mass murderer did).I am talking more about conditions associated with parole, rather than just merely being an ex-felon. Of course, once their debt is paid they obtain the rights all the rest of us have and that includes the right to vote( had to throw that in).
I did not say that children cannot have access. I am saying that it MUST be under responsible adult supervision. What possible explanation can you have to dispute that?
Did your Dad let you take the gun around town and display it as if it were a toy?
Do YOU know who the killers are, really?I have no problem with felons and parolees being denied a gun.
All guns must now be under adult supervision (adult = 18), depending on age, although that supervision might be miles away on a hunting trip. Many high schoolers carry guns to school to hunt when they get out, and if they carry it to school they will get it at home and go out for the evening hunt.
No, I don't know. That's the point - you would deny rights to millions because you don't know either.
There is no problem with guns... it is the gun owners.
It is the parents (or lack thereof).
The gun, like a knife, like a sledge hammer, is just an object.Then irresponsible gun owners need to feel the pain of more certain and consistent penalties for negligence.
That's already the law. Do you wish more laws saying the same thing?
Well if it is, I have heard nothing regarding the parents role in tragic shooting incident. If it is the law, I want more rigorous enforcement and prosecutions.
If you recall in Michigan, with the prosecution of the parents involved with the boy that committed murder at the school, authorities were saying that blaming parents was not the standard modus operandi director, but the circumstances were so heinous that charges had to be brought.
I say that this needs to happen more often and assuredly whenever minors commit crimes with weapons obtained by negligent adults and parents.The parents of the kid shooter are being charged now.
I spoke of charging parents a few days ago, I think to you. You know as well as I do that parents do not, and cannot, exercise 24-7 control over children. And some parents cannot exercise hardly ANY control...yet cannot get help from law enforcement either. I agree with you in spirit on charging parents, but also recognize that it doesn't always make sense. A blanket "blame parents for everything a 17 year old "child" does" just isn't reasonable. Would you imprison a parent if a kid steals a car, gets drunk and kills someone? If a kid shoplifts should the parent have it on their record? If a kid has a schoolyard fistfight, should the parent be charged with assault?
It's not so simple as you project.But can they do better than 00/00? That is all that it takes to find that Junior has an AR-15 hiding under his bed.
If a 17 year old kid shoots up my house, while he may be arrested, who do I sue for collection of damages? A minor that can't legally enter into a contract?Not ever seen a gun in any of my schools growing up. Lucky the bullies that attack me ending up in my win or draw. One bully was a foot taller than me and he and I were shocked he was just putty in my hands. In time I learn the art of not fighting, gave confidence to traveling to 6 continents and a backbone in life.
Kids today with guns in their lockers, Then security guards needs a gun and maybe the teacher has a gun.
What we got here is
HIGH NOON.As I understand it you will sue both parent and child. You didn't respond to any of the questions about imprisoning the parents - do you equate paying damages with a prison sentence?
After chatting with you awhile, I realized that there is a shade of gray here.
The situation in Michigan should involve jail time to the parents as their involvement in and contribution to the resulting carnage at the school made them accessories to the crime.
On the other hand, parents while possibly not considered accessories can through their negligence be a contributory factor to whatever crime was committed by their child. I would resign myself to imposing stiff fines for such negligence, not a prison sentence.
And part Or all of that fine that they pay should be directed toward me and the damages to my house to make me whole. If they resist then the law should have the authority garnish wages, etc...Yes, it's gray (isn't most of life?). The couple in Michigan - I've heard, without verifying, that they bought the gun and gave it to the child they knew was "troubled". They share responsibility for the results if that's true. But if they knew nothing about it, and they took proper care of their own gun, then it would be very different. And if they owned the gun and left it on the bedside table with that disturbed child in the house a third case arises.
But the kid in the ghetto, the one that joins a gang and is away from home for days at a time, that gets a gun...well, Mom and Dad have no responsibility at all. That child might be 17, might be 15, might be 12, but still no responsibility. Parents cannot always control their wayward children.
And that's my point - that parents are sometimes helpless to do anything at all. I suppose they might report that gun ownership of their child (if they even know of it) to the police...and risk heavy retribution from the gang or even the child. Not something I would require of anyone.Ok, to absolve themselves of responsibility, the child should be reported to the authorities as missing or truent by the parents. Can't hold parents responsible for the behavior of a child that is not home. I understand the risk, that is why the reporting has to be done surreptitiously.
I would consider "proper care" as securing weapons away from access to minors if not for misuse, to avoid accidents. Leaving a revolver on the kitchen table is not prudent whether the child is troubled or not. It sets a bad example.Agree with that "proper care"; I'm a believer in a gun safe or something similar. Not only to prevent accidents by children or other unauthorized users, but theft as well. Today's safes with fingerprint security are easy to use, fast when needed quickly and not unduly expensive. Of course, if you need a safe for a half dozen long guns the cost will be high, but then so was the cost of the guns.
No one stores a revolver on the kitchen table - exaggeration adds nothing. But they DO leave one in a bedside table, or under a pillow, or hidden in couch cushions. Not acceptable, IMO, and doubly so with children around. While household children may be well trained in gun safety, visitors may not be.
Realistically, reporting that a gang member isn't at home is useless and will produce no action from police or anyone else. At best it might aid in defending against a lawsuit over the child's illegal actions, but it won't save any lives. And isn't that the goal? To save lives?
I personally can defend myself from any object or attacker unless they are a greater world class train fighter than me, which are very rare possibilities. Any fool can pull a trigger of a gun and can kill me easily enough. I've actually dodged a few bullets in my time and was extremely lucky.. If I had a gun, I would have been kill a couple of times in traveling in 6 wars zone countries and supervisor the Largest riots in Canada. I'm maybe fearless yet not stupid like the whole history of guns. The greatest design killers of all time.
I remember when I was a pre-teen, another boy my age was found making pipe bombs in his bedroom after one went off on him and took some of his body parts in the process.
The problem was not that he had access to aluminum piping, or chemicals, or electric wiring, or batteries.
The fault was with how he was wired upstairs between his ears, and his parents and lack of parenting.Well, stupidity will always be the leading cause of death. Darwin award, I would give to germ warfare like vaccines, over guns. Have to give the red states more credits than the blue state for avoiding the covid mandates or do or else policy.
Only valid excuse I give US gun owners is the possibility of Tyranny from their own government and US military which is the largest corporation in the world. The only solution is both sides dropped their gun and replace the hate with love and kindness. Yet they rather fight than switch. Like the civil wars happening all over the world right now.That is why the parents should bear responsibility for things like this that happen. It just might encourage them to watch "Junior" a bit more carefully.
When I was 13, we had handguns, rifles, shotguns in my house and the homes of my friends and relatives. We took them out for hunting. I knew my father would become quite violent if I ever touched one of his guns without his permission. I didn't want to take a chance of getting him that mad. Life was much happier if you didn't mess with the guns without permission.
Nobody ever got shot.
I have to wonder how many parents have a13-year-old in their home and guns and never have a problem. I'm sure the number are in the tens of thousands.
The problem is with the parents and what they raised. This was a kid who was never taught to respect firearms or what they can do to a person.
Building guns from a kit is a problem. A bigger problem is that plastic guns can be made with 3D printers and being able to legally purchase other gun parts.Nobody in my whole entire family tree had guns. Even the larger Mexican side of our family.
Most of the time didn't lock our houses or car doors. Some place in Canada, we can still do this.
Been train since a child about community security.
Threw out my war toys at age eight, developed an adult attitude from then onward.This is another time where we agree.
Life is fraught with dangerous materials and components, that is why children have parents as legal guardians. It is their responsibility to supervise.
Years ago while living in Montana, a boy broke my house window with a rock. The boy couldn't have been older than 7. So, who pays for the window? That is why I don't allow rock throwing by my nephews that visit, because they are not the ones held responsible if they break something. It comes out of my pocket.We made them do choirs for punishment.
It teaches them work ethic and to think twice about breaking things. Even though they didn't get much done in work.Well, Castle, I am with you as there has to be consequences for disobedience.
https://youtu.be/N0Wn3Eey6dY
Jim Carrey take on cold dead hands.
This drove the right sooo madd.
Notice in the band John Lennon, Gandi and A Lincoln who all have been shot to death.
I think this is true. The problem with gun violence is not the guns but the people who use them. I was exposed to guns quite a bit growing up and we never had any problems.
When we look at Americans 4% of the world population. With 50% of the worlds war budget where 85% of the killing is done by Guns. American have 25% of the worlds prisoners in American jails. Of one object guns is most of the murders and suicide are triple that.
Makes America a bad example of peace with guns amounts and control.Castle, how come you've become reasonable again so soon?
Because the absence of love and reason, is evil. Always been this way. Your just more agreeable on this topic.
Those are "little tidbits" that are certainly hard to ignore.
I hear you Ken.
I lived during 1962, and I do know that firearms could be ordered by mail order catalog, would you REALLy believe that that is a good idea today?
As a kid in 1962, would I be willing to compare that period's mores, the state of America and the World with that of 60 years previous, 1902?
Time changes Space.....
Credence2
Related Discussions
- 27
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the found
by Mr. Happy 10 years ago
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrotethat the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind of thinking, should Italy return to Roman laws and should Egypt re-enact the laws...
- 25
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 6 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
- 407
2nd Amendment meaning
by WTucker 14 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.A well regulated militia being necessary to...
- 29
Gun Violence in America Year, to Date, as of April 22, 2023
by Mike Russo 7 months ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
- 13
Is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?
by thegecko 10 years ago
Is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?Should it be repealed or a new version more applicable to modern realities be ratified?
- 21
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?
by MR Black 11 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...