Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Dan H]

So what? Are we only allowed to talk about the worst problem facing society at any given moment, and not consider others until we completely eradicate everything that is worse? Ridiculous.

Not at all, but lest we forget, this entire thread started because the most powerful man in the world decided to use his position to declare that guns are easier to get than vegetables, so presumably it's something he regards as one of the worst problems in society. . . .

[OE32]

So what? Are we only allowed to talk about the worst problem facing society at any given moment, and not consider others until we completely eradicate everything that is worse? Ridiculous.

Not at all, but lest we forget, this entire thread started because the most powerful man in the world decided to use his position to declare that guns are easier to get than vegetables, so presumably it's something he regards as one of the worst problems in society. . . .

[Nodack]

This thread started because you were insulted by Obama's comment and wanted to make fun of him in a thread dedicated to it. I doubt if Obama thinks gun violence is the most pressing problem facing America today. It's one of many problems facing America today. Obviously you don't think gun violence is something we should care about in America today. I think there are millions of Americans that disagree with you.

Criminals get things they aren't supposed to therefore we shouldn't make anything illegal because what's the point? Is that really a rationale? Why make anything illegal then? A criminal will kill anyway, why bother making it illegal? A criminal might get a 50cal. Therefore we should give them to everybody. That' seems to be the NRA stance. That argument doesn't hold water with me at all.

BTW regarding Iran, I've stated in another thread that I don't feel like we should be negotiating with them. As far going to war with them, last I checked it was the guy you voted for who just deployed the Navy to the Straights of Hormuz and set up a standoff with them. Give him a call, he doesn't put much credence into my opinions.

Last I checked the reason for the standoff had nothing to do with denying Iran nuclear weapons or the negotiations with them.

I kind of agree that limiting magazine sizes won't make any difference. It takes less than 10 seconds to change magazines and a guy could carry dozens of magazines. Fully auto or not doesn't make that much difference to me when we are talking about a killer out to kill. Fully auto goes through a magazine in only a few seconds and isn't as accurate. A real killer will most likely leave it in semi auto and pick and choose his targets.

Things change. We started with sticks and rocks to fight with and then gradually kept finding better and better ways of killing. In the Revolutionary days we graduated to muskets. Our weapons keep improving and getting more and more lethal as time goes by. The machine gun came out in WWI and changed everything. Who knows what they will come out with next? Many Americans think we should put restrictions on certain weapons because they are so lethal and can do so much harm and are tired of seeing people on killing sprees and nothing being done about it. Other Americans (gun owners)don't think we should restrict any weapons at all since criminals don't care about laws.

Obviously like everything else in America, this topic is divided along political party lines.

[Dan H]

Obviously like everything else in America, this topic is divided along political party lines.

Mmm, not so much, it's more a divide between libertarians and statists. There are plenty of each in either party. Anti-gun Republicans like Mitt Romney and Peter King, pro-2A Dems like Joe Manchin and Jon Tester as examples.

BTW, hold the phone guys, I've cracked the case -

[Indy]

I said that in the event someone were to gain access to your guns and use them in a crime, you should be guilty of a felony.

Is there anyone here opposed to this? This seems very cut and dry.

[Dan H]

I said that in the event someone were to gain access to your guns and use them in a crime, you should be guilty of a felony.

Is there anyone here opposed to this? This seems very cut and dry.

So if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you should be partially responsible?

The legal precedent for this sort of action seem to run contrary to what you all think it should.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... f_a_s.html

Under the legal doctrine of proximate cause, LeCesne said the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured. He didn't know of any cases in which a car owner had been sued or found civilly liable for injuries resulting from a stolen car.

LeCesne called it a big stretch. "It might set a bad precedent if every car owner who has their car stolen (because they absently-mindedly left the keys in the car) is potentially, civilly liable if the thief happens to injure someone," he said. "It would make insurance rates go through the roof. I can't imagine that happening."

But the case of the gun stolen from an unlocked car is a tad more nuanced. LeCesne said it's theoretically possible for someone to be held liable. But it depends on what is done with the weapon after it's stolen.

If the gun is used to intentionally commit a crime, to kill or injure someone, the court will not impose civil liability on the gun owner for the acts of a third person. Again, under the proximate cause doctrine, the actions of the thief would supersede the negligence of the gun owner, cutting off his liability, LeCesne said.

The courts, he said, generally view the shooting another person as unforeseeable act for a lawful gun owner who simply forgot to secure their weapon. "It's unfair and unjust to hold that person responsible," LeCesne said.

[Indy]

I said that in the event someone were to gain access to your guns and use them in a crime, you should be guilty of a felony.

Is there anyone here opposed to this? This seems very cut and dry.

So if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you should be partially responsible?

The legal precedent for this sort of action seem to run contrary to what you all think it should.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... f_a_s.html

Under the legal doctrine of proximate cause, LeCesne said the act of stealing the car and the recklessness or negligence involved in hitting or injuring another victim would supersede the car owner's negligence in leaving the car unsecured. He didn't know of any cases in which a car owner had been sued or found civilly liable for injuries resulting from a stolen car.

LeCesne called it a big stretch. "It might set a bad precedent if every car owner who has their car stolen (because they absently-mindedly left the keys in the car) is potentially, civilly liable if the thief happens to injure someone," he said. "It would make insurance rates go through the roof. I can't imagine that happening."

But the case of the gun stolen from an unlocked car is a tad more nuanced. LeCesne said it's theoretically possible for someone to be held liable. But it depends on what is done with the weapon after it's stolen.

If the gun is used to intentionally commit a crime, to kill or injure someone, the court will not impose civil liability on the gun owner for the acts of a third person. Again, under the proximate cause doctrine, the actions of the thief would supersede the negligence of the gun owner, cutting off his liability, LeCesne said.

The courts, he said, generally view the shooting another person as unforeseeable act for a lawful gun owner who simply forgot to secure their weapon. "It's unfair and unjust to hold that person responsible," LeCesne said.

Really, Dan? That isn't even close to an apple to apple comparison. Firearms are designed to kill things. So I take it you are against holding people responsible for keeping their weapons out of the hands of others.

[Dan H]

Did you ready ANY of the quoted text or the linked article? The issue of guns is specifically addressed. Read the part about proximate cause doctrine, it speaks specifically to your hypothetical situation.

You guys complain about not pasting snippets from articles to back up my point , then when I do you don't bother to read them. What is this, Calvinball?

At this point though, it's a moot issue. Your side has lost the debate.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/op ... rrer=&_r=0

[OE32]

Proximate cause would be at issue if you were trying to hold the gun owner responsible for the murder itself. But one could make it a felony offense to leave a gun unsecured - no proximate cause problem there. But I'm hesitant to take a position on this.

[Indy]

Did you ready ANY of the quoted text or the linked article? The issue of guns is specifically addressed. Read the part about proximate cause doctrine, it speaks specifically to your hypothetical situation.

You guys complain about not pasting snippets from articles to back up my point , then when I do you don't bother to read them. What is this, Calvinball?

At this point though, it's a moot issue. Your side has lost the debate.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/op ... rrer=&_r=0

Dan, I read it. It certainly doesn't address what anyone here suggested. And it is strictly speaking in the liability realm, not criminal. I am really surprised you are not in favor of holding people accountable for their lack of control of their firearms. Besides the fact that is a firearm, it seems to go against what you would generally support--personal responsibility.

[Dan H]

Requiring personal responsibility under penalty of law runs a bit contrary to actually being personally responsible, don't you think?

[Ghost]

The difference between stealing a car and a gun is that the purpose of the gun is to kill. Yes, cars actually kill more people than guns, but the primary purpose of a gun is to be able to kill things. So, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Here's a better one, though. I also said that securing your weapon means ensuring that anyone with access to it has training and is registered to fire a gun. If you give a 10 year old the keys to your car and he drives to the store, running someone over and killing them, you are guilty (or should be) of manslaughter. I can see why the case of it being stolen seems dicier, but gun ownership comes with some pretty serious responsibilities. So does driving a car, but they are not the same thing.

Also, I should clarify that I do not think that in all cases the gun owner should be found guilty. But if you discover that a weapon is missing, it has to get reported immediately. If you don't, then you do face charges, and will be investigated accordingly. The 2nd Amendment was written in a time of citizen militias; today, we are each our own militia (except for a handful of crazy groups out in the boonies). We do NOT have an unfettered right to bear arms; for those who wish to do so, there is an obligation to do so in a responsible (well regulated) manner.

Requiring personal responsibility under penalty of law runs a bit contrary to actually being personally responsible, don't you think?

Semantics. And no, they aren't exclusive, or even contrary. There are plenty of criminals out there who learned nothing from going to prison, but many more who needed the shock of being held accountable for their actions (i.e., being legally punished and going to prison) to improve their lives.

It would be GREAT if we didn't need laws to enforce certain standards of behavior because people all felt the burden of personal responsibility for their actions. But, that's pure fantasy.

[Ghost]

Proximate cause would be at issue if you were trying to hold the gun owner responsible for the murder itself. But one could make it a felony offense to leave a gun unsecured - no proximate cause problem there. But I'm hesitant to take a position on this.

No need to take a stand on one side or the other...but I'm curious what you think.

[Ghost]

What is this, Calvinball?

Well, it IS an internet forum. We are more civil than most, but yeah, we make up the rules as we go. You should know this. Also, I love Calvinball.

At this point though, it's a moot issue. Your side has lost the debate.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/op ... rrer=&_r=0

Right, the debate is over because there was a survey that favors your side by a narrow margin. That makes sense. We should replace the entire board with a SurveyMonkey site and not talk about anything, but just do opinion polls to determine the truth.

At the risk of sounding like I'm ranting, too...I don't personally care if "my side" "wins" the debate. I mean, I do want to see more effective and enforceable gun control legislation. But I'm not arguing with the purpose of beating you.

[OE32]

Proximate cause would be at issue if you were trying to hold the gun owner responsible for the murder itself. But one could make it a felony offense to leave a gun unsecured - no proximate cause problem there. But I'm hesitant to take a position on this.

No need to take a stand on one side or the other...but I'm curious what you think.

I'm wary of criminal penalties, especially for offenses that are reducible to negligence - which is the proposal I've seen made on this board. If you want to discourage unsafe gun practices, there are many ways to skin that cat, but in America, we reflexively look to the criminal justice system, because we assume that the best way to stop certain activities is to provide harsh punishments. I don't think the evidence favors that position. What is the solution? Not sure, but I'd look for other ideas long before using the criminal code.

Now, if we set the bar at recklessness - say, making a gun obviously and easily available to children or to the mentally unstable or to strangers - then I start to become more comfortable with calling that a felony. Of course, if you intentionally made a gun available to someone you knew had fantasies of committing killing sprees because you wanted to see something interesting on the news, well that could give rise to criminal liability under current law.

Maybe if the NRA were a sane organization, an organization like that could be used to provide the sorts of protection you're talking about. Quasi-governmental organizations like the ABA and the AMA regulate lawyers and doctors, and you could have pro-gun group that was mostly concerned with gun safety who monitored the safe use of guns without being so doggedly hostile to any law having to do with guns whatsoever. Such a group could provide licenses for anyone to own a gun: it could even be required by law to offer such licenses freely and openly to anyone who passes a criminal background check and who is trained in gun safety and stewardship, with its mission being to spread both the licenses and gun safety practices and to advocate for the rights and freedoms of lawful gun owners. Such licenses would be on file with the organization, not the government, who may subpoena the organization for knowledge relating to an individual's license if such subpoena is warranted. Then, if someone is found not to be exercising their rights safely, the licensee could be put on probation by the organization, not the government, or the license suspended or revoked. Any gun salesman would be especially wary of running afoul of such an organization and so would be encouraged to work within its parameters. Private persons circulating guns without licenses would be akin to a criminal organization. You'd have to get buy-in from gun owners, and there's the rub. They're listening to Alex Jones, buying gold and guns to store in their underground bunkers, waiting for judgment day.

[Ghost]

I'm wary of criminal penalties, especially for offenses that are reducible to negligence - which is the proposal I've seen made on this board. If you want to discourage unsafe gun practices, there are many ways to skin that cat, but in America, we reflexively look to the criminal justice system, because we assume that the best way to stop certain activities is to provide harsh punishments. I don't think the evidence favors that position. What is the solution? Not sure, but I'd look for other ideas long before using the criminal code.

Yeah, you are right. The problem is that I don't see a way we can get to that point from where we are now. As you point out, the NRA is basically insane. Most gun toting groups, unfortunately, fall into the far right spectrum and would have no interest in reasonable gun control. I'm sure there are a few out there who would, but they will never rise to the level of the ABA or AMA -- not a chance in hell.

I feel it's one of those situations where the two sides are so far apart--even though there are plenty of liberals who fully support responsible gun ownership, the conservatives do not want anyone even touching their sacredest of cows--that there is just no way any effective controls can be put in place without legal regulation.

Would it be effective? I don't know...with a good marketing campaign, maybe. A really good one. I do think that what I am asking is a pretty minimal burden on the gun owner, though.

Get trained and registered.
Don't let anyone who isn't trained and registered use it. (By the way, I don't even care how young you want to train your kid...frankly, the earlier, the better.)
Lock it up and report it if it goes missing, right away.
If you sell it or give it away, report that right away.

This is a minimal, common sense set of requirements in my book. And it would be great if the NRA realizes it is actually in their best interests to support this kind of thing, but they never will. So, plan B is the law.

Also, it IS right there in the wording of the Bill of Rights..."well regulated." That should be the mantra of the gun control crowd. In fact, I think I support the 2nd Amendment even more than the guys on the right do their sacred cow.

[Nodack]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

I think for many, a well regulated militia means a military force raised from the civil population to appose the regular army in an emergency. It is their duty to always be ready and prepared for the eventual conflict.

Interesting article.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/politics/ ... index.html

Amid unfounded, Internet-fueled rumors that U.S. Special Operations Forces might be trying to take over parts of the southwest, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered Texas State Guard forces under his control to keep an eye on the U.S. military during a large upcoming training exercise.

"Jade Helm is a long planned and coordinated exercise," Pentagon spokesman, Col. Steve Warren said. "We are not taking over anything."

But that's not stopping websites like the Oath Keepers' which says, "The Internet is abuzz with speculation these exercises are not designed to prepare U.S. troops for overseas operations, but are actually designed to prepare U.S. troops for aggressive operations against American citizenry."

Others says the military is testing the loyalty of local communities. During the exercise some of the troops will be in civilian clothes, move in civilians vehicles and carry weapons with blank ammunition. But there will be exercise monitors at all times.

[Nodack]

I thought for sure somebody would bite on this.

[Dan H]

I thought for sure somebody would bite on this.

It's a big nothing burger and far from unprecedented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... 4_weeks.29

[Nodack]

It was a big nothing sandwich for me, but not to everybody in Texas already paranoid of government including the Governor that feels the need to keep an eye on them just to make sure they aren't planning an overthrow.