Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Just Another High School Shooting

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Daddy and mommy should be on the hook for this.  See my strict liability explanation.  No excuse.  

There may well be liability on the school's part.  You can bet your ass that the school district will be a defendant in this, and that they will pay a fortune that will not bring back the dead child.  

Without a chain of custody of the gun and an expectation of being held liable for the weapon, you cannot hold the parents responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I notice that you chose not to address the other question about addressing attitude changes now - why is that? 

Attitudes towards loose guns will change with registration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Without a chain of custody of the gun and an expectation of being held liable for the weapon, you cannot hold the parents responsible.

Do we have a chain of custody with this incident and Sandy Hook? 

 

Was this achieved without registration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Do we have a chain of custody with this incident and Sandy Hook? 

 

Was this achieved without registration?

No, because we don't have gun registration silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

No, because we don't have gun registration silly.

BS. Buying a weapon from a licensed seller provides a record that I'd bet my firstborn goes into a fed database. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

Okay now that's... just... weird.

How did you happen come across Robert Riversong's blog?

I simply Googled 'the guns used at Columbine'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Brandishing and walking around with a weapon are very different things.

Not to the founding fathers, you poser. This is at the heart of the history in Heller. It was not laid out honestly to Scalia.

Ample court judgements in Colonial days state that the mere presence of a weapon was disturbing to the Kindome. Intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, raised the infraction from misdemeanor to felony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Not to the founding fathers, you poser. This is at the heart of the history in Heller. It was not laid out honestly to Scalia.

Ample court judgements in Colonial days state that the mere presence of a weapon was disturbing to the Kindome. Intent to use a weapon, or hiding the weapon, raised the infraction from misdemeanor to felony. 

The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

BS. Buying a weapon from a licensed seller provides a record that I'd bet my firstborn goes into a fed database. 

According to our local gun slingers, those records are kept in paper form at the sellers.  They are not forwarded to the feds.

Registration should be all encompassing, cradle to grave, and cover all transfers and all weapons.  And electronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What I find interesting is that when there is a case of Constitutional infringements that they care about, their panties are waded up so tight they can't breathe.  Like this for example:

Its important to follow the Constitution..... sometimes.

Motel 6 didn't infringe the constitution. That's been discussed. That doesn't mean that potential customers may decide to avoid the Vichy French Hotel Chain.  Again, no constitutional issue there, either. 

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled(after every school shooting, ad infinitum cause they just keep happening) gunz shitfight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Motel 6 didn't infringe the constitution. That's been discussed. That doesn't mean that potential customers may decide to avoid the Vichy French Hotel Chain.  Again, no constitutional issue there, either. 

 

There may be a constitutional issue here.  Did the police request the intel or was it provided without request?  The police asking for the information without a warrant is unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  

I'd rather they carriers OC than CC.

I know I'm in the minority on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

According to our local gun slingers, those records are kept in paper form at the sellers.  They are not forwarded to the feds.

Registration should be all encompassing, cradle to grave, and cover all transfers and all weapons.  And electronic.

We wish. My guess is when a sale is made at an electronic register, a couple of electrons indicating a weapons sale combine with the "private" info and go into a dark hole of server farmland and is sorted several ways, certainly by state, county, town ... 

I've always hunched the jackbooted thugs would be directed from the left side of the aisle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spatial Ed said:

There may be a constitutional issue here.  Did the police request the intel or was it provided without request?  The police asking for the information without a warrant is unconstitutional. 

true, although I interpreted it as an overly patriotic hotel guy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'd rather they carriers OC than CC.

I know I'm in the minority on this.

OC is a deterrent.  CC is not.  And CC is less sporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

There may be a constitutional issue here.  Did the police request the intel or was it provided without request?  The police asking for the information without a warrant is unconstitutional. 

Cite, please? Please note that there is a distinct legal difference between asking for something and the taking of that thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

According to our local gun slingers, those records are kept in paper form at the sellers.  They are not forwarded to the feds.

Registration should be all encompassing, cradle to grave, and cover all transfers and all weapons.  And electronic.

The records are supposed to be kept by the sellers and not stolen by the Feds but that isn't always what happens.

Even the Canadians couldn't stick with something less ambitious than what you're asking for. And they're considerably less Uncooperative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Cite, please? Please note that there is a distinct legal difference between asking for something and the taking of that thing. 

If the cops requested the list from Motel 6 and the night clerk denied the request citing no warrant, would that be constitutional issue?

Why would the cops request something they didn't have a constitutional right to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spatial Ed said:

If the cops requested the list from Motel 6 and the night clerk denied the request citing no warrant, would that be constitutional issue?

Why would the cops request something they didn't have a constitutional right to?

To the 1st - if they took it from the night clerk after being refused - damn skippy - clear violation of the 4th.  If they asked and the night clerk gave it to 'em?  No issue, as far as I know.  The issue arises not from the asking, but, from taking without either a warrant or permission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
13 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Registration does not equal confiscation.  I just don't see that happening.

So you think that Billy's family would break the law and not give up his scary Mini-14 if he died today? Why?

I'm still wondering about this one, Ed.

What's your bet? Will Billy's family break the law or will his registration result in confiscation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm still wondering about this one, Ed.

What's your bet? Will Billy's family break the law or will his registration result in confiscation?

Far as I can tell from your hypothetical, Billy would no longer have use of his Mini-14.  no issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st - if they took it from the night clerk after being refused - damn skippy - clear violation of the 4th.  If they asked and the night clerk gave it to 'em?  No issue, as far as I know.  The issue arises not from the asking, but, from taking without either a warrant or permission. 

Who's 4th rights have been violated?  The night clerk or the ones on the list?  The method of acquiring the list without a warrant doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

Without a chain of custody of the gun and an expectation of being held liable for the weapon, you cannot hold the parents responsible.

Yeah, if daddy gave the combo to the gun safe to little Jr. Shootemup, he's on the hook.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yeah, if daddy gave the combo to the gun safe to little Jr. Shootemup, he's on the hook.  

In our gun society, not giving your family the right to defend themselves against home invaders would be considered irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

In our gun society, not giving your family the right to defend themselves against home invaders would be considered irresponsible.

Giving the combo to a minor would be bad enough, let alone one with known bullying and suicide issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Giving the combo to a minor would be bad enough, let alone one with known bullying and suicide issues.  

According to our local gunslingers, guns are the perfect solution to bullying and suicide (self murder).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Who's 4th rights have been violated?  The night clerk or the ones on the list?  The method of acquiring the list without a warrant doesn't matter.

The hotel registry is the hotel's property, so in this case, it would be the hotel owner's rights that had been violated.   Protections from illegal search and seizure are outlined in the 4th. Any evidence obtained by an illegal seizure would be tossed, and this would have impact to any action brought against hotel guests as a result of the illegal seizure. 

Can you provide any statute or decision that supports that premise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  

My discussion (and your position) involves the gun rights presented in Heller. According to the three CATO attorneys, they are based on English precedent. You need to defend English precedent in a welcome, polite conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The hotel registry is the hotel's property, so in this case, it would be the hotel owner's rights that had been violated.   Protections from illegal search and seizure are outlined in the 4th. Any evidence obtained by an illegal seizure would be tossed, and this would have impact to any action brought against hotel guests as a result of the illegal seizure. 

Can you provide any statute or decision that supports that premise? 

So in your mind, the police illegally gathering information is only a 4th amendment violation of the keeper of that information and not the target of that information?  Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The definition of Brandishing in the US Statute (the only one that matters for this discussion) includes "menacing", and the mere existence of a firearm does not satisfy the legal definition "menacing".  Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  

The discussion of constitutional  gun "rights" now rests pivotally with Heller. Heller's CATO scholars insist that our self defense behavior and law came from England. In this discussion you need to defend and explain the laws in play during Colonial times, and brandishing a weapon was a felony. Displaying an open weapon was a misdemeanor. As stated repeatedly, intent or concealment became a felony.

Quote

(p1804) Most of the blame, however, can be attributed to Malcolm brushing aside the Statute of Northampton as insignificant with little, if any, research on the topic. In 1980, for example, Malcolm virtually dismissed an entire series of weapon statutes, and as a result mischaracterized the Statute as prohibiting the “brandish[ing of] a firearm so as to terrify others,”418 when the Statute actually prohibited the act of carrying arms in public.

Wherever the fault lies for Malcolm’s historical omission and mischaracterization, we know for certain that the Statute of Northampton was strictly enforced as a prohibition on going armed in public.422 It was a misdemeanor resulting in forfeiture of arms and up to thirty days imprisonment.423 There was no requirement that the accused have a specific intent to terrify the public or cause harm.424

Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 39, pg 1727, 2012

Gun "rights" violations were not listed in the Declaration of Independence. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

So in your mind, the police illegally gathering information is only a 4th amendment violation of the keeper of that information and not the target of that information?  Wow.

Gawdamn but you can twist and shout!    You asked a question, I gave you an answer, which as expected you tried and failed to twist into something that wasn't said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

How would registration have prevented this?

I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Daddy and mommy should be on the hook for this.  See my strict liability explanation.  No excuse.  

 

Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.

I've already responded.  Registration will change Americans attitudes to loose guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.

Without registration, this is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.

Straw man. Hi Jeffie Poo. Registration helps to solve crimes. Nobody claimed they prevent murders.

Heller II loved registration. Why do you hate Heller II?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.

Do that a few times, and people start taking better care to prevent stuff like this.  Registration?  No need to get the government involved in that, at least on the front end.  After a gun is used in a murder, go directly to the manufacturer.  If they cannot produce records of the sale to a purchaser (which wholesalers will always be able to show), they are on the hook too, otherwise, proceed down the chain of ownership/custody, until you reach the person who sold/gave/didn't secure or otherwise allowed it into the wrong hands.  They go on the hook too.  Go back to square one and start over; they lose everything, but end up with more than the victim, i.e. another chance.  

The fix comes not from taking away rights, but from requiring responsibility.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Without registration, this is not possible.

I think it is, if we let the court system handle it, and make it a strict liability issue.  See prior post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yep.  100% agree.  Start locking some parents up for their kid getting a gun and killing someone either accidentally or on purpose and make an example out of them.  It will be a wake up call for many to get their shit together and either secure their guns or get them out of the house.

Daddy and Jr can share a cell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

I've already responded.  Registration will change Americans attitudes to loose guns.

Maybe, maybe not.  You stated that registration would have prevented THIS crime.  That's a lie.  As evadent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

The discussion of constitutionsal "rights" now rests with Heller. Heller insists that our self defense behavior and law came from England. In this discussion you need to defend and explain the laws in play during Colonial times, and brandishing a weapon was a felony.

Gun "rights" violations were not listed in the Declaration of Independence. Why not?

Geez Louise. That's the dumbest comment yet. We are a nation of laws and guns. Laws change occasionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to prevent an activity, you need to alter the way people perceive the consequences of their actions.

To prevent drunk driving, MADD pushed a campaign to increase the consequences of the act.  Attitudes changed.

To prevent these shootings, a similar effort would be needed.  Registration would put the public on notice that weapons can be traced.  Liability would follow.  Attitudes to securing your weapons would change.  Parents would be very careful not to allow their children unsupervised access to them.  This alone would prevent many of this cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Maybe, maybe not.  You stated that registration would have prevented THIS crime.  That's a lie.  As evadent.

Not true, see previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I've asked Specious that question several times now.  He just ignores it because he know's it can't "Prevent" murders.

I can follow their logic as to how registration might help - but, their logic ignores that irrational people (ie the ones who'd do something like this in the first place) aren't going to abide by conventional logic.   


<soapbox_mode>  My biggest issue with the liberal approach to most things is that the approach is centered on changing everything EXCEPT the people who's behaviors are the problem.  Specious provides a perfect example in this thread - he stated ( and I agree emphatically) that attitudes about guns need to change.  Yet - what does he completely ignore?  Discussing anything to do with what changes are warranted, and how do we begin to effect those changes.  What does he continue to harp upon?  The behaviors of everyone EXCEPT the people inflicting violence.  

Ya know what?  I can actually support WHY Specious is clamoring for registration, but, I don't agree that a registration scheme will create what he seeks, and worry that it will be misused as a first step towards outlawing private firearms ownership and confiscation.  The bigger question is why do so many want to ignore the real problem:  The undesirable behaviors and the social and systemic causes of those behaviors?

</soapbox_mode> 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawbreakers will continue to break laws.  But without the laws, we can't prosecute them.  So draw the line in the sand and watch who crosses it.

Sure, a segment of the population will not register their guns and continue to be irresponsible.  When we do find them, we can then process them.  

In time, just like drunk driving laws, the vast majority of the public will support them and realize they make us all safer.  Who would even think of rolling back DUI laws now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Geez Louise. That's the dumbest comment yet.

Not dumb. The Brits ran several operations to collect powder. They broke the locks off the guns they found. They disarmed Boston coming and going, staying or leaving. If individual gun rights existed, the editorials, pamphleteers, and unccoperatives would speak out. They didn't.

I repeat. Gun "rights" violations are not among the 27 grievances in the Declaration. Not dumb, but very significant.

Quote

We are a nation of laws and guns. Laws change occasionally. 

The law "which changed" was Heller in 2008. It's reasoning was based on alternate facts...then was extended to MacDonald with other stinky history.  

LAW REVIEWS VS HISTORIANS   21 professional historians united and complained in a brief about Heller. Thirty four professional historians of a different era complained about MacDonald. Both briefs have landed before Wrenn/Grace as we speak. The full Ninth Circuit will discuss this case, and TR feels the recent shall issue victory will not survive there. I agree. It's not likely that the CC issue will see the SC via Wrenn.

This history stuff is about the basics of self defense law as it applies to the Second, in two timeframes. Heller's legitimacy now  depends on the FF timeframe. Time for the history buffs of the SA Gun Club to step forward. This is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

If you want to prevent an activity, you need to alter the way people perceive the consequences of their actions.

To prevent drunk driving, MADD pushed a campaign to increase the consequences of the act.  Attitudes changed.

To prevent these shootings, a similar effort would be needed.  Registration would put the public on notice that weapons can be traced.  Liability would follow.  Attitudes to securing your weapons would change.  Parents would be very careful not to allow their children unsupervised access to them.  This alone would prevent many of this cases.

Go MADD. The change of attitudes thing is central.

Attitudes follow perceptions. I notice that in the gun issue, popular perceptions are often based on steady misrepresentations. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Not dumb. The Brits ran several operations to collect powder. They broke the locks off the guns they found. They disarmed Boston coming and going, staying or leaving. If individual gun rights existed, the editorials, pamphleteers, and unccoperatives would speak out. They didn't.

I repeat. Gun "rights" violations are not among the 27 grievances in the Declaration. Not dumb, but very significant.

The law "which changed" was Heller in 2008. It's reasoning was based on alternate facts...then was extended to MacDonald with other stinky history.  

LAW REVIEWS VS HISTORIANS   21 professional historians united and complained in a brief about Heller. Thirty four professional historians of a different era complained about MacDonald. Both briefs have landed before Wrenn/Grace as we speak. The full Ninth Circuit will discuss this case, and TR feels the recent shall issue victory will not survive there. I agree. It's not likely that the CC issue will see the SC via Wrenn.

This history stuff is about the basics of self defense law as it applies to the Second, in two timeframes. Heller's legitimacy now  depends on the FF timeframe. Time for the history buffs of the SA Gun Club to step forward. This is fun.

I do regret calling that dumb. I'd like all of us to become more civil regardless of the discussion.

I doubt,tho, that many care about the history except h buffs. Im a recovering legal "mind" meself. My thought is that if the Supremes voted to ban guns today, none of us holding non-registered weapons would turn them in. I'm not talking about preppers or milita guys but the actual fabric of this great nation: guys and gals like me. That said, I'd have no issue with Sol' s strict liability argument. Treat this issue casually, fuck you and yer crazy kid.

Driving drunk the second time? I'll shoot ya meself. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Raising it to point at an individual?  That's menacing.  You know that, but will continue to obfuscate in your myopic pursuit of firearms eradication.  

Guy, what's up with this bit again?

Quote

myopic pursuit of firearms eradication. STRAW MAN ALERT

We went through this recently, and I listed half a dozen priorities which pointedly avoid sport confiscation. Our discussion was whether the FF's had a right to open carry. The answer is no The Statute of Northampton was in plan, per Scalia's Blackstone. NO WEAPONS in cities and markets 1776-1791 and after.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Guy, what's up with this bit again?

We went through this recently, and I listed half a dozen priorities which pointedly avoid sport confiscation. Our discussion was whether the FF's had a right to open carry. The answer is no The Statute of Northampton was in plan, per Scalia's Blackstone. NO WEAPONS in cities and markets 1776-1791 and after.

 

You and many others have stated on numerous occasions, here and on the public stage, that eradication of private firearms is your ultimate objective.  Your attempts to equate how the Crown treated its subjects to the current state of precedent in a country who's citizens are not subjects is to me nothing more than an interesting foray into how others did things.   You'll note also that the crown taxed its subjects without permitting those subjects a voice via vote, and that we took (at least back then) an opposite approach to that facet of crown law, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You and many others have stated on numerous occasions, here and on the public stage, that eradication of private firearms is your ultimate objective.  

You can't cite that. And it's not my "objective." My objective it to debunk gun disinformation on our boards. It's going okay.

Quote

Your attempts to equate how the Crown treated its subjects to the current state of precedent in a country who's citizens are not subjects is to me nothing more than an interesting foray into how others did things.  

Yes, it's interesting. But the emphasis on this history is not mine, mate. I am just debunking away. The Guy claims and the Scalia claims about "the constitution" led me to some great reading, and an interesting pack of lies. Your gun rights now rest upon them. LMFAO.

And get the timeframes right. To claim Bill of Rights protection, and Second Amendment intent, we will be discussing the laws and beliefs of the FF era. When discussing the aborted history within MacDonald, we'll be discussing the post-civil war intents and belief systems. Scalia and Alito were selectively misguided when they did the same.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That misdemeanor charge will not put him in jail next to his son even if they could get it to stick.  A fine and admonition.  All he has to say in his defense was I didn't give the kid the code and if  that bastard says I did, he's not only a killer, but a liar to boot.  Now, a statue that would charge accessory to murder to the owner of the gun would put some teeth in it.  Of course, we would need a chain of custody and ownership to do such a thing.  And if someone used your gun to kill someone, you'd be doing some explaining.  Hence the argument of tightening up loose guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

That misdemeanor charge will not put him in jail next to his son even if they could get it to stick.  A fine and admonition.  All he has to say in his defense was I didn't give the kid the code and if  that bastard says I did, he's not only a killer, but a liar to boot.  Now, a statue that would charge accessory to murder to the owner of the gun would put some teeth in it.  Of course, we would need a chain of custody and ownership to do such a thing.  And if someone used your gun to kill someone, you'd be doing some explaining.  Hence the argument of tightening up loose guns.

Agreed.  It would need legislative changes.  Florida's legislature has always been for sale to the highest bidder, so it won't be happening here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

If you want to prevent an activity, you need to alter the way people perceive the consequences of their actions.

To prevent drunk driving, MADD pushed a campaign to increase the consequences of the act.  Attitudes changed.

To prevent these shootings, a similar effort would be needed.  Registration would put the public on notice that weapons can be traced.  Liability would follow.  Attitudes to securing your weapons would change.  Parents would be very careful not to allow their children unsupervised access to them.  This alone would prevent many of this cases.

I'm a big proponent of the MADD methodology.  I don't recall them advocating registration of sales of Jack Daniels, Colt 45 and Mad Dog 20/20.  Instead they changed attitudes by pushing for stronger penalties on violators. raising public awareness of the issues, and generally just shaming people into doing the right thing.  Had nothing to do with blaming the tools of the DUI issue - i.e. cars and booze.   It was about individual accountability and responsibility.  

Once again, an epic fail by the ed of speciousness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Go MADD. The change of attitudes thing is central.

Attitudes follow perceptions. I notice that in the gun issue, popular perceptions are often based on steady misrepresentations. 

 

Joke-al, it warms my heart that after all these years of me pushing you, that you are finally coming around to my MADD approach.  Will wonders never cease?  There is hope for you yet, so time to put your big boy pants on and join the revolution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I can follow their logic as to how registration might help - but, their logic ignores that irrational people (ie the ones who'd do something like this in the first place) aren't going to abide by conventional logic.   


<soapbox_mode>  My biggest issue with the liberal approach to most things is that the approach is centered on changing everything EXCEPT the people who's behaviors are the problem.  Specious provides a perfect example in this thread - he stated ( and I agree emphatically) that attitudes about guns need to change.  Yet - what does he completely ignore?  Discussing anything to do with what changes are warranted, and how do we begin to effect those changes.  What does he continue to harp upon?  The behaviors of everyone EXCEPT the people inflicting violence.  

Ya know what?  I can actually support WHY Specious is clamoring for registration, but, I don't agree that a registration scheme will create what he seeks, and worry that it will be misused as a first step towards outlawing private firearms ownership and confiscation.  The bigger question is why do so many want to ignore the real problem:  The undesirable behaviors and the social and systemic causes of those behaviors?

</soapbox_mode> 

Your first YUGE mistake is in assuming that specious fred is actually interested in making a difference in the so-called gun murder problem.   He ignores the real problem deliberately because his goal is disarm the majority of citizens because he does not, in any way, agree that regular citizens need or deserve to be armed.  Had you paid attention to his schtick throughout the years, it would be evadent to you that this "concern" is all an act.  Its BULLSHIT is what it is.   IMO, he's giddy whenever there is a shooting so he can use it to advance his agenda.  He is actually "happy" when he reads in the news that people are shot.  In SE's darkest of hearts, he's GLAD that children are murdered so he can advance his specious agenda.  His faux concern is nothing but crocodile years.  I'm serious about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Joke-al, it warms my heart that after all these years of me pushing you, that you are finally coming around to my MADD approach.  Will wonders never cease?  There is hope for you yet, so time to put your big boy pants on and join the revolution.  

 MADD and Shootist Jeff and Joe go into a bar...

************************

Some student accounts say the shooter and victim had been friends. Others relate a recent falling out. The perp wanted to make a statement about bullying. The newspaper account mentioned an AR-15 model. The last thing the victim said was something like "I knew you would shoot up the school...:

One clueless little fucker with bully issues and a gunsafe combo. And here we are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Moderate said:

I interviewed a carpenter and he told me he was an ex- con,  said he killed his old lady, I asked if the bitch deseved it.

Has anyone thought that the dead kid might have deserved it?

Fuck off, cunt boi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Your first YUGE mistake is in assuming that specious fred is actually interested in making a difference in the so-called gun murder problem.   He ignores the real problem deliberately because his goal is disarm the majority of citizens because he does not, in any way, agree that regular citizens need or deserve to be armed.  Had you paid attention to his schtick throughout the years, it would be evadent to you that this "concern" is all an act.  Its BULLSHIT is what it is.   IMO, he's giddy whenever there is a shooting so he can use it to advance his agenda.  He is actually "happy" when he reads in the news that people are shot.  In SE's darkest of hearts, he's GLAD that children are murdered so he can advance his specious agenda.  His faux concern is nothing but crocodile years.  I'm serious about this.

Geez Jeff. You're like a cannibal on PA. Something I said must have torqued you for you to fabricate such stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

Geez Jeff. You're like a cannibal on PA. Something I said must have torqued you for you to fabricate such stuff. 

Not everything is about YOU, douchebag joe.  Is your name specious fred???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Your first YUGE mistake is in assuming that specious fred is actually interested in making a difference in the so-called gun murder problem.   He ignores the real problem deliberately because his goal is disarm the majority of citizens because he does not, in any way, agree that regular citizens need or deserve to be armed.  Had you paid attention to his schtick throughout the years, it would be evadent to you that this "concern" is all an act.  Its BULLSHIT is what it is.   IMO, he's giddy whenever there is a shooting so he can use it to advance his agenda.  He is actually "happy" when he reads in the news that people are shot.  In SE's darkest of hearts, he's GLAD that children are murdered so he can advance his specious agenda.  His faux concern is nothing but crocodile years.  I'm serious about this.

it's ok Jeff. No one will take your guns, and there WILL be another shooting. As long as the sun rises in the east, those are American truisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not everything is about YOU, douchebag joe.  Is your name specious fred???

My mistake. I scanned the vitriol and assumed your loathing for me had no equal. Does your dog hunt yet, Jeffie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

My mistake. I scanned the vitriol and assumed your loathing for me had no equal. Does your dog hunt yet, Jeffie?

My dog is dead, joe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

My dog is dead, joe.  

What happened? You were enjoying his GS company and that of your wife weeks ago. My condolences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm a big proponent of the MADD methodology.  I don't recall them advocating registration of sales of Jack Daniels, Colt 45 and Mad Dog 20/20.  Instead they changed attitudes by pushing for stronger penalties on violators. raising public awareness of the issues, and generally just shaming people into doing the right thing.  Had nothing to do with blaming the tools of the DUI issue - i.e. cars and booze.   It was about individual accountability and responsibility.  

Once again, an epic fail by the ed of speciousness.  

You are tying the tools, not the behavior.   We need to increase individual accountability and responsibility.  To do that, we need to be tougher on the enablers along with the perpetrators.  Just like MADD did.  Prior to MADD, bartenders were not responsible for over serving.  Now they can be held liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

You are tying the tools, not the behavior.   We need to increase individual accountability and responsibility.  To do that, we need to be tougher on the enablers along with the perpetrators.  Just like MADD did.  Prior to MADD, bartenders were not responsible for over serving.  Now they can be held liable.

Gots to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

You are tying the tools, not the behavior.   We need to increase individual accountability and responsibility.  To do that, we need to be tougher on the enablers along with the perpetrators.  Just like MADD did.  Prior to MADD, bartenders were not responsible for over serving.  Now they can be held liable.

Are you suggesting you need a campaign similar to MADD for parents to keep guns away from mentally ill kids to stop these school shootings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Are you suggesting you need a campaign similar to MADD for parents to keep guns away from mentally ill kids to stop these school shootings?

Why limit options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I can follow their logic as to how registration might help - but, their logic ignores that irrational people (ie the ones who'd do something like this in the first place) aren't going to abide by conventional logic.   

Which is why you need to change the physical logic, as was done in Australia, cos no matter how irrational and unconventional you are - you aren't going on a shooting rampage unless you can find & obtain the gun to shoot.

Treat the number of guns accessible in a neighbourhood as a number that must remain constant or increase - you're always going to have the problem with irrational people getting a hold of them and going on a rampage. Treat the number of guns accessible in a neighbourhood as something that can be changed to address the problem, and you start getting somewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:
15 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm still wondering about this one, Ed.

What's your bet? Will Billy's family break the law or will his registration result in confiscation?

Far as I can tell from your hypothetical, Billy would no longer have use of his Mini-14.  no issue here.

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Do that a few times, and people start taking better care to prevent stuff like this.  Registration?  No need to get the government involved in that, at least on the front end.  After a gun is used in a murder, go directly to the manufacturer.  If they cannot produce records of the sale to a purchaser (which wholesalers will always be able to show), they are on the hook too, otherwise, proceed down the chain of ownership/custody, until you reach the person who sold/gave/didn't secure or otherwise allowed it into the wrong hands.  They go on the hook too.  Go back to square one and start over; they lose everything, but end up with more than the victim, i.e. another chance.  

The fix comes not from taking away rights, but from requiring responsibility.  

What about private sales?

That's the question about your plan that will lead to registration.

Closed registries make those of us who wish to keep our guns Uncooperative about registering. We don't want to end up like Billy Backstay, owning guns that are destined for confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Agreed.  It would need legislative changes.  Florida's legislature has always been for sale to the highest bidder, so it won't be happening here.  

And thank goodness!

Otherwise, we'd be at the mercy of those in our legislature who want to ban ordinary .22's as "assault weapons."

Do you think guns like my wife's Ruger 10-22 are assault weapons that need to be banned or do you agree with the NRA on that point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And thank goodness!

Otherwise, we'd be at the mercy of those in our legislature who want to ban ordinary .22's as "assault weapons."

Do you think guns like my wife's Ruger 10-22 are assault weapons that need to be banned or do you agree with the NRA on that point?

Ten months of this? Give it a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

^^^ Ah, the Family Heirloom Meltdown. 

The law was formed by the citizens of CT. That's how it's supposed to work. The CT state constitution honors individual gun rights, but CT state law restricts AW's constitutionally. Your problem, Tom, is with democracy in CT.

Cry us a river. Billy's family will not be left without effective firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

^^^ Ah, the Family Heirloom Meltdown. 

The law was formed by the citizens of CT. That's how it's supposed to work. The CT state constitution honors individual gun rights, but restricts AW's constitutionally. Your problem, Tom, is with democracy in CT.

Billy's family will not be left without effective firearms.

The law was formed in reaction to a convenient shooting, one of many such examples that lead me to believe these convenient shootings are used to promote gun control.

The constitution takes certain choices off the table for the majority, as noted by the federal judge who stopped this summer's planned confiscation program out in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law was formed in reaction to a convenient shooting, one of many such examples that lead me to believe these convenient shootings are used to promote gun control.

What you desire is cynical and fruitless: for the public to not learn from (or respond to) mass shootings. You don't sound very bright.

Quote

The constitution takes certain choices off the table for the majority, as noted by the federal judge who stopped this summer's planned confiscation program out in California.

The voters of the state decided that one, too. Californians firmly rejected the casual possession of LCM's, using their ballot box.  It's pitiful that you are repeatedly celebrating this ruling, which is temporary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

Orphaned guns are truley a heartbreaking saga.  Especially when kept separated from grieving loved ones.  But with proper paperwork, they can be reunited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yeah - we all say that, all the time. 

It's the last thing my wife and I say to each before falling asleep at night and first thing we say when we wake up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's true that dead people no longer use their guns.

The issue is, once he's dead, the registered gun must be surrendered to the government. Or maybe his family will break the law.

I doubt they will, so I think it's almost certain that his gun is destined for confiscation because he registered it. It doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that registration will result in confiscation in that case. Does it make you feel safer?

Does it at least make you feel stupider for saying it doesn't happen when in fact the law requires it?

Orphaned guns are truley a heartbreaking saga.  Especially when kept separated from grieving loved ones.  But with proper paperwork, they can be reunited.

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No they can't.

Anyone who did not register a scary weapon in his state by the date on which the registry closed is banned from acquiring one. There's no paperwork, no exception. The guns were registered and will be confiscated when the owners die.

Your lies don't fool those of us who pay attention. Registration is leading to confiscation every single day.

So not registering their weapon indicates they are irresponsible gun owners and the gun will be orphaned upon death.  Responsible gun owners will make sure their precious has a warm home after they pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

You are tying the tools, not the behavior.   We need to increase individual accountability and responsibility.  To do that, we need to be tougher on the enablers along with the perpetrators.  Just like MADD did.  Prior to MADD, bartenders were not responsible for over serving.  Now they can be held liable.

Who are the "over servers" or enablers in this scenario?  Are you implying the gun sellers are the over servers?  The difference is more than a few extra shots of jack and then getting behind the wheel of a 6000lb car is deadly.  Selling an extra Glock or two to a qualified buyer is not.  More guns sold to the same person doesn't make them more likely to kill whereas more shots of tequilla is.  So your analogy falls as flat as your erection without viagra.  

Although, in all fairness - I am impressed with your sudden embrace of personal responsibility and looking at the behavior rather than the toolz.  If you are at all serious, maybe you could take your boy jocal aside and have "the talk" with him.  He still focuses almost solely on toolz.  Maybe you could beat some sense into him.  And by "beat some sense into him", I'm not talking about that metaphorically.  I think he really needs some sense BEAT into him.  Just saying.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law was formed in reaction to a convenient shooting, one of many such examples that lead me to believe these convenient shootings are used to promote gun control.

What you desire is cynical and fruitless: for the public to not learn from (or respond to) mass shootings. You don't sound very bright.

Quote

The constitution takes certain choices off the table for the majority, as noted by the federal judge who stopped this summer's planned confiscation program out in California.

The voters of the state decided that one, too. Californians firmly rejected the casual possession of LCM's, using their ballot box.  It's pitiful that you are repeatedly celebrating this ruling, which is temporary.