New Zealand reforming gun laws/US gun debate after another shooting

[Kiorrik]

While Congress and state legislatures do nothing, I guess we have to find our silver linings in the heroes:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3396120/a-high-school-football-player-rushed-a-school-shooter-and-sacrificed-his-own-life-to-save-his-classmates

That kid seemingly had the world by the balls.  Football star, scholar athlete.  And at 16 years old, he gave his life to save others.

May the shooter rot in hell, and if there’s a God, may this hero child reap all the rewards our universe can offer.

Silver lining; hero dead.

Sorry Roy. This is the equivalent of "how about that weather" again.

I see no silver linings here.

Only death.

I think you’re misinterpreting me.  I’m as frustrated as you.  But in our collective grief, there’s room to celebrate this kid for limiting the carnage.

You ever see a news report about some kid whose relative/friend/neighbor/teacher couldn't pay for their medical treatment and so the kid gave up his birthday presents/sold lemonade/shoveled snow/some other thing for money and gave it to the relative/friend/neighbor/teacher?

 The first thing you think is "It's nice that we live in a world where people can still be kind to one another!" And that's a nice feeling until you realize we live in a world so bleak that we basically forced a 7 year old to subsidize the medical care of a person they love, because we as a society have completely and utterly failed to make the most vulnerable part of a person's life anything other than a complete nightmare.

I think this is kind of in that category. i read the story about that kid and all I can think is "The fact that he had to make that sacrifice is heartbreaking." We all failed that kid.

You aren't wrong to celebrate the young man, he was a hero. I just wish the world didn't need so many heroes.

I agree that lil dude was a hero.

But imagine grieving your child's death and reading a stranger online saying "silver lining, he died a hero".

What's the cause? What was he fighting? "Not having more people die"? Very worthy cause. In 2 weeks, he'll be another pixel on a bar graph. He didn't achieve a thing.

Yeh nah, not the time and place.

Sorry for being jaded but tell me I'm wrong.

[mobilija]

While Congress and state legislatures do nothing, I guess we have to find our silver linings in the heroes:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3396120/a-high-school-football-player-rushed-a-school-shooter-and-sacrificed-his-own-life-to-save-his-classmates

That kid seemingly had the world by the balls.  Football star, scholar athlete.  And at 16 years old, he gave his life to save others.

May the shooter rot in hell, and if there’s a God, may this hero child reap all the rewards our universe can offer.

Silver lining; hero dead.

Sorry Roy. This is the equivalent of "how about that weather" again.

I see no silver linings here.

Only death.

I think you’re misinterpreting me.  I’m as frustrated as you.  But in our collective grief, there’s room to celebrate this kid for limiting the carnage.

You ever see a news report about some kid whose relative/friend/neighbor/teacher couldn't pay for their medical treatment and so the kid gave up his birthday presents/sold lemonade/shoveled snow/some other thing for money and gave it to the relative/friend/neighbor/teacher?

 The first thing you think is "It's nice that we live in a world where people can still be kind to one another!" And that's a nice feeling until you realize we live in a world so bleak that we basically forced a 7 year old to subsidize the medical care of a person they love, because we as a society have completely and utterly failed to make the most vulnerable part of a person's life anything other than a complete nightmare.

I think this is kind of in that category. i read the story about that kid and all I can think is "The fact that he had to make that sacrifice is heartbreaking." We all failed that kid.

You aren't wrong to celebrate the young man, he was a hero. I just wish the world didn't need so many heroes.

I agree that lil dude was a hero.

But imagine grieving your child's death and reading a stranger online saying "silver lining, he died a hero".

What's the cause? What was he fighting? "Not having more people die"? Very worthy cause. In 2 weeks, he'll be another pixel on a bar graph. He didn't achieve a thing.

Yeh nah, not the time and place.

Sorry for being jaded but tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

You can be sad and angry. And you can be proud.
Ask anyone that has lost a loved one in military service.

May not happen all at once...ya know, stages of grieving

[Kiorrik]

While Congress and state legislatures do nothing, I guess we have to find our silver linings in the heroes:

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3396120/a-high-school-football-player-rushed-a-school-shooter-and-sacrificed-his-own-life-to-save-his-classmates

That kid seemingly had the world by the balls.  Football star, scholar athlete.  And at 16 years old, he gave his life to save others.

May the shooter rot in hell, and if there’s a God, may this hero child reap all the rewards our universe can offer.

Silver lining; hero dead.

Sorry Roy. This is the equivalent of "how about that weather" again.

I see no silver linings here.

Only death.

I think you’re misinterpreting me.  I’m as frustrated as you.  But in our collective grief, there’s room to celebrate this kid for limiting the carnage.

You ever see a news report about some kid whose relative/friend/neighbor/teacher couldn't pay for their medical treatment and so the kid gave up his birthday presents/sold lemonade/shoveled snow/some other thing for money and gave it to the relative/friend/neighbor/teacher?

 The first thing you think is "It's nice that we live in a world where people can still be kind to one another!" And that's a nice feeling until you realize we live in a world so bleak that we basically forced a 7 year old to subsidize the medical care of a person they love, because we as a society have completely and utterly failed to make the most vulnerable part of a person's life anything other than a complete nightmare.

I think this is kind of in that category. i read the story about that kid and all I can think is "The fact that he had to make that sacrifice is heartbreaking." We all failed that kid.

You aren't wrong to celebrate the young man, he was a hero. I just wish the world didn't need so many heroes.

I agree that lil dude was a hero.

But imagine grieving your child's death and reading a stranger online saying "silver lining, he died a hero".

What's the cause? What was he fighting? "Not having more people die"? Very worthy cause. In 2 weeks, he'll be another pixel on a bar graph. He didn't achieve a thing.

Yeh nah, not the time and place.

Sorry for being jaded but tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

You can be sad and angry. And you can be proud.
Ask anyone that has lost a loved one in military service.

May not happen all at once...ya know, stages of grieving

That's different because they are fighting for something, they choose that job, and know the risks. This is a lil dude at school.

[mobilija]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/us/san-jose-gun-law/index.html

A step in the right direction.

I don't love lining the pockets of insurance companies...but if it increases gun ownership taking responsibility and decreases the financial burden on everybody else, I'm in.

[Roy H.]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/us/san-jose-gun-law/index.html

A step in the right direction.

I don't love lining the pockets of insurance companies...but if it increases gun ownership taking responsibility and decreases the financial burden on everybody else, I'm in.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with this.

In the past, in areas that involve other fundamental rights, the Court has held that the government can't put a financial burden on those exercising the right.  We've seen that with voting, but also with free speech.  The Supreme Court has ruled, for instance, that the government can't attempt to regulate children accessing p0rnography on the internet by requiring credit cared verification, because not every adult has the financial resources to have a credit / debit card.

Here, those who cannot afford insurance are denied a fundamental right.  My guess is that this restriction won't be valid, even if I agree with the intent.  However, that's a 45 second analysis, having done no research whatsoever.

[mobilija]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?


Btw, ur prolly right, Roy. It gets overturned.

[Roy H.]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

[ozgod]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

And to that point, that's where constitutional amendments come in, if enough people feel strongly enough that the Framers got something wrong, and they elect enough representatives and senators to either get the 2/3 supermajority in both chambers, or get a 2/3 supermajority of all state legislatures to make an amendment. Unfortunately (and I say this as a gun owner who believes in the right to bear firearms responsibly) this has become one of those culture war topics where neither side will give an inch, because it's red meat to both their bases and a huge fundraising source so there will be perpetual gridlock on it.

[Roy H.]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

And to that point, that's where constitutional amendments come in, if enough people feel strongly enough that the Framers got something wrong, and they elect enough representatives and senators to either get the 2/3 supermajority in both chambers, or get a 2/3 supermajority of all state legislatures to make an amendment. Unfortunately (and I say this as a gun owner who believes in the right to bear firearms responsibly) this has become one of those culture war topics where neither side will give an inch, because it's red meat to both their bases and a huge fundraising source so there will be perpetual gridlock on it.

Yeah, it will be impossible to get an Amendment passed, or this or any other "culture war" issue.

I think the happy medium that most people could live with is allowing guns for hunting and home defense, with any and all restrictions (beyond an organized militia?) falling to the individual states to regulate.

Like with almost every issue, I think it's best to let people at the individual level decide.  But, that won't happen with an enumerated right.

[gift]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

Just like they couldn't look 240 years into the future, neither can we. Sometimes a piece of wisdom is conditionally specific, and sometimes a lack of understanding of a piece of wisdom is also conditionally specific.

[nickagneta]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

And to that point, that's where constitutional amendments come in, if enough people feel strongly enough that the Framers got something wrong, and they elect enough representatives and senators to either get the 2/3 supermajority in both chambers, or get a 2/3 supermajority of all state legislatures to make an amendment. Unfortunately (and I say this as a gun owner who believes in the right to bear firearms responsibly) this has become one of those culture war topics where neither side will give an inch, because it's red meat to both their bases and a huge fundraising source so there will be perpetual gridlock on it.

Yeah, the 2nd isn't going away anytime soon, as much as I would love that to happen, but that doesn't mean good, strong gun laws that make sense and are supported by something like 70% of the country shouldn't be enacted.

- Mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods
- Mandatory safety classes before purchase
- Background checks that include mental health background checks such that certain diagnosis' can't buy guns
- No gun possession by ex-felons
- No open carry
- Magazine size limitations
- Ammunition purchase limits per month
- New gun purchases must have fingerprint usage technology
- -All gun owners must have a certified safe to store weapons
- Long barrell weapons/rifles are for hunting purposes only with mandatory sentencing for use in non-hunting situations
- Liability/mandatory sentencing to the owner if they allow someone else to use their gun
- Permit necessary to carry guns over state lines
- Confiscation of guns from people found guilty of certain crimes rather than giving them to relatives or friends
- Elimination of stand your ground laws
- A national gun registry
- Complete elimination of gun sales at gun shows

There are others, but, these are reasonable laws that I believe a large majority of the populace can get behind.

Now, maybe those in very rural, very Red states won't like such laws due to their long standing gun culture. But I am sorry, it's this very culture that America needs to eliminate over time. That culture propagates the expansion of gun ownership and relaxation of gun laws which has led to where we are today, which is a small city of people dying due to guns in this country every year, when the rest of the 1st world countries in the world have nothing close to these type of gun deaths in their societies.

Anyway, my semi-annual rant on guns is now over. See you in 6 months on the subject.

[Roy H.]

It just bizarre to me....that gun ownership is a fundamental right. What makes that so? I mean, other than being written on a 200yr old legal document, what metaphysically makes it a right?

That's what makes it fundamental, for better or worse.  The Framers decided that this was one of our core, controlling principles.

They got so much right:  habeas corpus; freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and the press; no unreasonable search and seizure; due process; and many, many more.

Regarding the Second Amendment, they couldn't look 240 years into the future and see things like mass shootings, street gangs, the fetishization of guns, etc.  I suspect they wanted people to be able to defend their homes, to hunt, and to have access to militias.

Just like they couldn't look 240 years into the future, neither can we. Sometimes a piece of wisdom is conditionally specific, and sometimes a lack of understanding of a piece of wisdom is also conditionally specific.

It certainly could be, it's hard for me to see in today's day and age that the benefits of fairly unrestricted gun access outweighs the negatives.  The Supreme Court is very likely to allow open carry nationwide.    Localities are slowly losing their ability to put reasonable restrictions on gun possession. 

I suppose that such restrictions could restrict our ability to engage in guerrila warfare against enemies, foreign or domestic.  But, in day to day activities, I'm not sure what practical right we lose if we're not allowed to walk about with our rifle strapped on our back in a crowd of people, or if we're restricted to a magazine size of ten bullets instead of 30.

EDIT:

- Mandatory background checks and reasonable waiting periods
- Mandatory safety classes before purchase
- Background checks that include mental health background checks such that certain diagnosis' can't buy guns
- No gun possession by ex-felons
- No open carry
- Magazine size limitations
- Ammunition purchase limits per month
- New gun purchases must have fingerprint usage technology
- -All gun owners must have a certified safe to store weapons
- Long barrell weapons/rifles are for hunting purposes only with mandatory sentencing for use in non-hunting situations
- Liability/mandatory sentencing to the owner if they allow someone else to use their gun
- Permit necessary to carry guns over state lines
- Confiscation of guns from people found guilty of certain crimes rather than giving them to relatives or friends
- Elimination of stand your ground laws
- A national gun registry
- Complete elimination of gun sales at gun shows

I agree with most of these. 

In terms of stand your ground, it depends on how broadly we're defining that term.  For instance, within one's own home ("castle doctrine"), I don't think there should be a duty to retreat.  In most other instances, though, I think there should be, so long as that duty is construed reasonably.  There are situations where you realistically can't retreat, and the law should reflect that.

In terms of gun shows, I don't have a problem with them so long as they're treated exactly like gun shops.

Regarding mental health checks, I think the ACLU and other disability advocates would fight on that.  But on its face, I agree with you.  Schizophrenics, for instance, simply shouldn't own firearms.

I think this is the only one I might outright disagree with you on:

Long barrell weapons/rifles are for hunting purposes only with mandatory sentencing for use in non-hunting situations

I think they apply to home defense, as well.

In addition, I'd add my own even more restrictive regulations:

1.  No possession of guns in public.  The only exceptions are for those who must use firearms for their employment, and there would be extensive licensing requirements.  For guns in private, you may only possess them in your own home, or on the land of others with written or "posted" permission for hunting purposes only.  (Maybe give an exception for shooting ranges and gun safety programs.  Make transporting a gun subject to very specific requirements, such as the gun and ammunition being stored separately, the gun having to be disassembled, etc.)

2.  Anybody who has a federal or local conviction for any felony or violent crime goes on to a registry, much like sex offenders.  These people are barred from owning firearms for a period of 10 (or more) years, and are subject to random search and testing at any time while in public.

3.  Any person wearing gang-associated clothing, with gang-associated tattoos, or that is otherwise shown to be a member of a gang is subject to random search and testing.  This applies not only to street gangs, but known violent and racist organizations.  In other words, sorry KKK members:  if you're wearing a hood in public, expect your homes and computers to be searched.

The mantra is always that it's not guns or gun owners who are the problems, but rather criminals.  So, let's take the guns away from the criminals,  and put reasonable restrictions on the rest of society.  If you're somebody who feels like you're infringed because you can't have a stockpile of 50,000 rounds of ammunition and an AR-15 with a 100 round drum and a modified fully automatic trigger that you display at protests so that you can "own the libs", then you might be a "gun nut".

[Kiorrik]

I like this John Stewart bit about gun violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6KZY4msgUY

That link with Domestic Violence is crazy.

Great way to start solving the issue.

It won't happen though. This is exactly the target audience for the NRA.

If I'm the NRA, I'd want unhinged people to be able to buy guns. Not just because that's a huge group of people, but also because giving these people guns makes the "GOOD" people want guns.

_{.edit: ps why can't the USA pick someone like John Stewart as a president. You know, as opposed to a feller like T***.}

[gouki88]

I like this John Stewart bit about gun violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6KZY4msgUY

That link with Domestic Violence is crazy.

Great way to start solving the issue.

It won't happen though. This is exactly the target audience for the NRA.

If I'm the NRA, I'd want unhinged people to be able to buy guns. Not just because that's a huge group of people, but also because giving these people guns makes the "GOOD" people want guns.

_{.edit: ps why can't the USA pick someone like John Stewart as a president. You know, as opposed to a feller like T***.}

That statistic stating that every 14 hours a woman is shot dead by an intimate partner is ... frightening. Domestic violence is a huge societal ill in the US (as it is in Australia).

[nickagneta]

I like this John Stewart bit about gun violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6KZY4msgUY

That link with Domestic Violence is crazy.

Great way to start solving the issue.

It won't happen though. This is exactly the target audience for the NRA.

If I'm the NRA, I'd want unhinged people to be able to buy guns. Not just because that's a huge group of people, but also because giving these people guns makes the "GOOD" people want guns.

_{.edit: ps why can't the USA pick someone like John Stewart as a president. You know, as opposed to a feller like T***.}

That statistic stating that every 14 hours a woman is shot dead by an intimate partner is ... frightening. Domestic violence is a huge societal ill in the US (as it is in Australia).

Here are other awful statistics.  Approximately every 13 minutes, someone dies by way of a gun in the USA.

That number for children and teens is one every 2 hours and 36 minutes. Think about that for a moment. At the start of every Celtic game, a child dies via gun. By the time the game is over, another child is dead because of guns.