[update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44173954

Up to 10 dead. Light casualties by recent standards. :(

Re: Another American school shooting
 

Sadly its the same depressing scenario we have seen many times before.:(

Re: Another American school shooting
 

Shock, outrage, 'but we have a right to bear arms and shoot people...'
'Lets give the teachers weapons' is Trump's fantastic idea, until a kid nicks it, or a teacher loses their temper/gun.
Repeat and repeat, mad country, there's no helping them.

Re: Another American school shooting
 

Re: Another American school shooting
 

If people go off the deep end and decide they want to kill others they will find a way. For me the most important part of these incidents isn't that firearms of whatever kind were used it's what's making these people do this and why it's escalating there are clearly some very troubling social issues here that need addressing. I doubt that will be the narrative on the media it will be more pushing of the firearms ban agenda i expect we will see the usual suspects turning up in short order to use the situation and families of the victims to further their agenda.

Re: Another American school shooting
 

But if tougher immigration laws will reduce illegal immigration (as is being proposed), why won’t tougher gun laws reduce gun crime?

No one has said gun ban, that’s just an NRA scare tactic - there’s a huge difference between gun control and gun ban; when they brought in drink drive laws, it didn’t involve banning all cars.

btw, "further their agenda" - you mean, the agenda of not wanting school kids slaughtered? I’d support that agenda.

There have been 22 school shootings this year in the USA - thoughts and prayers aren’t working, so why don’t we try something else?

How did the murderer get those guns? Someone should legally responsible for those guns.

If the murderer got his guns from his father as rumored, then the dad should be legally responsible for failure to properly secure the guns. But that only works if there are enforceable laws in place regarding gun storage in the home. If that law doesn't exist, then it should.

Such a law would not prevent any responsible citizen from owning a gun. It doesn't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, because it simply requires that the gun owner be held legally responsible for their guns, just like car owners are legally responsible for their cars.

The right laws make crime far less likely by modifying irresponsible/inappropriate behaviours, and by giving society legal recourse to hold people accountable for their actions - surely this is better than just repeating "thoughts and prayers" and doing nothing.

If we do nothing, nothing will change.

Re: Another American school shooting
 

Exactly nothing will change so why are we wasting time talking about it, let them get on with it, they obviously think burying all these kids is a price worth paying so get on with it and don't come bleating when it all to predictably happens again

Re: Another American school shooting
 

Wonder if this daft bint still thinks this is a good idea.

Just be thankful you don't live there, UK may have it's own issues, but that isn't one of them.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

We got far more pressing issues with knife crime, in London, which is this side of the pond.

I don't agree with guns but the U.S has their culture and they have guns, we don't and over here, we have a useless London Mayor doing nothing about it, except whining about hate speech online, oh and the latest, this week banning junk food ads in public places. Such a priority, while gangs stab to death other gang members in London, doesn't seem a high priority to Mr Khan.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Knifes are harder to ban as they have a legitimate and every day usage. That said we do at least try and control it making it illegal to carry one on you in public. The problem is the US is that they seem to take the smallest, if any, steps to control guns.

That said I don't really think the issues relate to each other.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Many years ago as a butcher for Dewhursts I was frequently sent to other outlets as a relief, holidays sickness etc.

We all had our own issue knives, just like chefs you keep your own knives and look after them yourself.

Obviously they would normally remain at your usual outlet but when going on relief had to be carried with you. There were strict rules on that. A thick tape was applied to the cutting edge to essentially render it blunt while travelling. They had to be in either bound in a "knife wrap" or case so as not to be readily available and the police would be informed of the starting point and time of journey, route and eta at the destination.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Wow I didn't know it was that strict! I assumed the police were given their discretion to decide if the carrying of a knife was legitimate.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I don't really know if it was (legally) that strict, it was company policy. IIRC one employee was arrested in London in a routine (at that time) stop and search. I can't remember the detail though, it was back in the mid 1970's.

The policy may have been implemented after this with discussion with the Met, I don't think it had any legal standing but was rolled out across the company to save future complications.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

As a boy scout (mid to late 60's) I and others regularly carried a sheath knife as part of the 'uniform'. As far as I remember, we could just walk into a shop and buy one, no form filling or documentation required.

They were great for playing 'splits' . . . you other old codgers will probably remember that game :D

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Yep, being an "old codger" I do but, the knife was within a sheathe with a locking strap (IIRC) at the top of the handle.

This is the American version but UK was just the same. No "quick draw" and stab!

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

It's not really the weapon, it's the attitude behind it: That your life doesn't matter and I can kill you without any second thought.

You can ban weapons until the cows come home but without tackling the attitude they'll always find something else to wreak mass harm.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

It is surprising that schools in the US don't employ security guards at the gates to check that nobody gets in if they possess a weapon. Has nobody thought of that simple solution?

:idea:

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

They do, didn't the one at the Texas school run away when the shooting started

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I just wish the BBC, ITV & Sky news would stop broadcasting these stories.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Well that is certainly not going to happen..

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...?noredirect=on

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

If he didn't have a gun he'd have found another way the problem isn't what is used the problem is what the hell is happening with the youth of America where this sort of thing is their answer to a problem. The culture of bullying and social hierarchy in the U.S has a the most to do with it I think it's a culture setup to exclude anyone that doesn't fit the acceptable social mould. Until America realises and admits it has a social problem nothing will change and putting all the blame onto firearms isn't the answer they have had millions of firearms owners in the U.S for over 100 hundred years it's only the last three decades where this has become a problem.

That said I do think at the very least before you can purchase a firearm you should have to prove you have secure storage for it and that's not a massive expectation to have.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

You can't just take these people off the street and expect them to do a good job. I think you need at least two fully trained guards and some support staff to stop and search at the entrance gates to schools. If the US wants an armed society, they should be prepared to stump up the cost of doing this if they want their kids to be safe.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Really, it's only been a problem in the last thirty years, was the wild west just a myth? Spree killing might have become a phenomenon since the early sixties but that is nearly half the hundred years you mention. I don't know what it'll take to cut these incidents down but it's looking to me like they're not inclined to even make a start on addressing the issues.

That's what they do, to quote Hugh

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

They need them at the entrance, to stop them getting in in the first place!

Wandering around the halls? It's like they are playing a game!

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Schools might have multiple entry points rather than being entirely closed off. Even so it says something about the situation if we make schools like airports with limited and controlled access points because the country doesn't want to get a grip on the larger problem.

These sprees are usually over quickly and a gun can kill a lot of people in that time. Having guns in the school might stop it being a drawn out situation, assuming the 'good people with guns' manage to respond and take them down which is itself not as simple as people make out.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

If you have a single entry point, it creates crowds for a potential shooter to kill (more) people - it’s called a ‘choke point’, and if you were Military on patrol, you were trained to avoid these (don’t get grouped into a large bunch, making it a ‘target rich’ environment).

They don’t need to ban guns, just control them.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Schools should be schools. We are trying to make our children grow up too fast, often this is partly at fault of big companies who make more money out of teens and young adults than children.

Schools should be safe but they shouldn't look or feel like a military establishment.

As others have said it's not guns, knives or other weapons that are the problem. It's a societal one.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Exactly. And just as we don’t let our kids near the knife block or the medicine cabinet, Americans shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near firearms until their society grows the freak up.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

And yet, they do....

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

You want news & media outlets to stop broadcasting the news?

:erm:

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Nice one, Chloé, but this does highlight the dilemma that the more you report these things, the more it seems to happen. Some people are inspired by these events.

However, I agree, the news needs to be reported.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I think they should anonymise the shooters’ names, to deny them the ‘fame’ (or infamy).

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

In the UK yes, do you think they US broadcast the knife murders in the UK?

I doubt it.


I bet they don't give a dam, like me on gun crime in the US

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Actually they mention it all the time - that and acid based crime now.

Average conversation goes something to the effect of:

(Brady Ban supporter): If you Take guns off the streets you will see crime rates lowered

NRA member: Have you seen what happens in the UK with knife crime?

Ban advocate: So you think we should allow guns on the street to anyone who wants them?

2A advocate: Then you better ban cars, knives / acid and everything else, too.

As for you - you don't give a damn and don't like that they report it? Good for you...change the channel then. I am sure that some folks (like the BBC) have very regional news coverage for purely local issues, alone.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

I agree with the fact that sometimes the infamy definitely does lead to copycat killings. For example, does anyone remember the Colorado massacre with James Holmes and the movie theater? Hickenlooper refused (even as head of the government) at the time to even mention James' name:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/co-gov...me-43855427652

Good on him and it comes from a place of principle.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I'll point out that we don't have a gun ban..just gun control and we should do the same for all the other weapons of choice including acid.

That wouldnt stop things like this Maggy :( (Restricting guns)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I would say that Gun Control is accurate but there is a total ban on handguns in the UK so on handguns, I would say ban. The weapons used in this attack were shot gun(s) but would have been banned in the UK as they are more than .22 caliber.

He also used explosives including Molotov cocktails which are banned in Texas, too - didn't exactly deter him, did it?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...uns-devos-says The Commission set up after 17 High School students were killed by guns isn't going to look at the role of guns?

Cognitive dissonance, much?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Devos probably isn't the best spokesperson for anything...she is not good at wording anything.

Still the basic theory is that this is an issue of murderers / homicidal maniacs. Not one where safety is quite the issue - safety would be say, this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-jTCNZSmY

Warning to viewers: That video contains footage of the accidental discharge of a firearm that results in injury of officer

That is more of an instruction on safety - Trump set up the panel more with the intent to look at the aspect of safety - i.e. how they brought weapons into the school (past detectors) / emergency response / lock down measures etc - not the weapon(s) itself (and their role).

She didn't word it very well but the panel was supposed to assess the situation on the ground(s) / real time / how the issue or shooter could be neutralized etc (like armed guards / campus police etc) not that of a behavioral psychologist as to ascertain the motives behind such events and or the politics of weapon bans and so on.

Her role as ES is to keep those institutes, kids and teachers all safe - a no brainer idea from some would be "ban guns from schools". Guess what, they already are - there is not much farther that she can go with that. Examine age restrictions? Pretty sure that no kid anywhere can wonder around with a gun. That is all taken care of - no need for her to endlessly hash over that.

That is why she needs to look beyond that otherwise the commission is rather a waste of time and money, no?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

No.It wouldn't but it might possibly reduce it.However what is needed is a new mindset over the right to bear arms no matter what. That could take a millennia.

---------- Post added at 08:25 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------

It's the word ban that sets the gun rights lobby going in the US whereas some Americans can deal with the words gun control a little better.;)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Anti gunners always start off with talk of gun control but quickly get to their ultimate goal of complete gun bans and that's when things go downhill they only use the term gun control because they know the majority of americans will not support total bans even non firearm owning americans want the right preserved.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Right, most Americans will think "huh, if they can get rid of the second amendment then the first is no more protected" What about the 4th and 5th - the 14th is the holy grail of all abortionists, so will that go, too? (Hopefully lol).

Maggy...your comment almost seems like a "it's a way of getting round getting NRA / Gun owning families offside". For the most part though, the US doesn't use the word gun ban - as I was saying above, they mainly associate that with the UK.

In the US it is mainly a "gun control VS gun rights" issue as the basic premise is that control is an attempt to "control the right" of people to bear arms.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

#undebunkable

Remember when Obama took everyone’s guns, and put gun owners into FEMA camps?

No, me neither...

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ----------

But surely "a well-regulated militia" means there are controls on it?

Why are "controls" = "ban" - there are building regulations and controls, but they haven’t banned buildings... ;)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

What are you on about Hugh i never said anything about politicians i am talking about the anti gun lobby in the U.S that's trying to get restrictions in place before going for their ultimate goal of a total ban and they are not even subtle about it anymore. Show me where I've ever talked about obama taking guns or fema camps I'll wait though it will be a long wait.

Also there are controls on firearms in the U.S you can't just walk into a gun store pick a gun hand over the money and walk out. You have to pass a background check, full id must be given usually with your last utility bill and if you purchase more then 3 or 4 in a month you'll have the atf contacting you.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Hugh is pointing out that the situation you described earlier has not actually happened.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

A) Politicians make the law

B) The Obama/FEMA camps statements were from people using the same rhetoric as you just did - first they put in gun control, then they ban guns, then they put gun owners in FEMA camps; none of these things happened, just like reasonable gun control laws would not lead to gun bans in the USA.

C)Anyone can buy a firearm from a private seller, including at gun shows, without requiring a background check or licensing.

On a related note - there’s something seriously wrong with a country’s priorities when kindergarteners learn this rhyme (to the tune of ‘Twinkle Twinkle’) - it’s a "lockdown" song in case a shooter comes to their school.


https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1528400298

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

No I'm talking about the current gun control movement who in some of their uploaded videos had senior spokespeople saying the ultimate goal was a complete ban on firearms though of the three videos i saw with the slipups all have now been taken down. Another aspect of many of the videos is comments are blocked not allowing anyone to correct the mountain of misinformation in the videos, if i hear one more protestor saying "the assault rifle 15 needs to be banned" I'm likely to suffer a concussion from banging my head against a wall.

The so called gun show loophole is being closed as we discuss and i agree it took too long to close that.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I think you will find all those students (and all others) killed and wounded by AR-15s don’t care if it’s an automatic or semi-automatic rifle - they’re more concerned with living than descriptives.

Since an AR-15 can fire up to 120 rounds a minute, I think the difference to the victims is fairly academic.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

What I find so surreal is that no one is trying to drive and emphasise the distinction between guns carried for self-defense or hunting and the military grade ones used in the more horrific mass shootings.

No-one who is rational can justify why they need a long range semi-automatic assault rifle. I mean no-one. Anyone who says that they need (not want) one is deluded and frankly needs help. As semi-automatics can be easily modified to near-full automatics via bump stops it makes the case even more compelling.

If the pro-gun voters in the US cannot understand the distinction between owning hand guns, hunting rifles & shotguns and semi automatics then, frankly, you question whether they should have any guns in the first place.

Maybe the case could be made more strongly if, after each mass shooting where semi-automatics are used, the NRA are subpoenaed before a televised, live, Senate hearing to justify to the American people why they must own such a weapon. The parents of the deceased are then offered an opportunity to cross-examine the NRA representative.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

On the militia, sure - not the guns.

Sure but there isn't a constitutional amendment protecting building regulation, is there?

So okay, let's say you come up with a gun regulation - if it doesn't constitute a ban then constitutionally it should be fine. What do you suggest?

Of course just because it is constitutional doesn't mean the restriction has to be supported...but okay, what are you suggesting?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

:rofl:

Yeah because it would be crazy to let you have anymore than 2 guns without you bringing your gas bill along to the store

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Err...I think you are making the argument here, as to why the weapon is irrelevant and yes the students would likely care as to who the lunatic is who is trying to kill them.

I mean if you get run over by a drunk driver the last thing you think is "hmmm, that car goes from o to 60 in 10 seconds, if only there was more regulation on cars being able to accelerate at such a pace"

No..you think "why is that maniac on the road?"

Once your injuries heal, you might call for a tough prison sentence, the same way that tough on crime advocates call for lengthy prison terms and mental health is a massive issue in this.

I mean you wouldn't blame the car in a hit and run issue so why blame the use of a gun in a massacre?

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 ----------

*sigh*

This again?

There is no such thing as the gun show loophole / nothing at all to do with gun shows. Nada, not a thing. Nothing.

If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, irregardless of the location (of said transaction) the FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase the gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on the prospective buyer via the federal NICS database, or confirm that he or she have passed a background check by examining the state-issued concealed carry permit or the government-issued purchase permit of the prospective buyer. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines — from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer — the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state. This is totally absent any issues of locality - it can happen wherever. So long as their residency (of state) matches.

There is no other law or regulation (nor the apparatus) , or precedent for any kind of background check, for any purpose for any sale of any item anywhere in the US, within the same state. And why should there be - interstate commerce is one thing but within the same state?

The 2012 ACA ruling let Roberts force 4 liberal justices of the SC to rule that there was a narrow definition of the commerce clause (but the ACA stood at the time, under the taxing provision of the IRS, since repealed) so even then, 4 liberal high court judges agreed on a narrow definition of the commerce clause (Scalia's famous line of not being forced to eat broccoli) so even at the federal level this one day might be determined unconstitutional, if appealed. Ironically, he was one of the few conservatives who has said that one day gun issues may yet be regulated.

States are free to do so within their own home state, several do:

For all Firearms:

Background checks for private sales:

These all require a background check by FFL:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Nevada [a]
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont

These all go farther and require a state issued permit for all firearms:

Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

Maryland and PA require background checks for Handguns and state permits for handguns are required in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and NC.

I am not sure where this idea of a gun show loophole started but it beggars disbelief - there is no merit / accuracy to the story, at all.

I think that it started after this vote:

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=1&vote=00097

Word then started to spread that there was a gun show loophole, there is no such thing nor has there ever been. Ever.

Better to use that as a means of awareness / alert people to the issue (especially kids) than not - no?

I see no problem in this.

---------- Post added at 04:18 ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 ----------

What gun show loop hole????

Argh, there is no such thing!!!!!

---------- Post added at 04:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 ----------

Reading through the rest of your post it sounded like standard anti-gun talking points but I had to reply to this specific part - the NRA do not have to justify why anyone must own a gun of any sort. They purely justify and lobby / explain why the government doesn't have any right or ability to infringe upon any American's right to buy such a gun.

(Btw unless it is in a classified session / behind closed doors, all hearings on Congress are available to the public and are televised just FYI.)

So they're now Senators, are they? Congress is not a courtroom (even if they do behave like a super judicial branch) and even in a courtroom you don't have the chance to cross examine unless you are counsel / defense attorney or prosecution.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history (1949 to present). Only incidents with ten or more fatalities are included

It is clear to anyone with an open mind that Semi-automatic rifles/pistols need to be be made illegal to own for private use and therefore more difficult to obtain.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

You obviously did not read the post enough to discover was specifically addressing semi/"full" automatic weapons.

Exactly the retort that pro-gun supporters use to close down any debate event when the debate is specific and addressed to a sub-set of gun types

Pure pedantry. The point I made was obvious: parents or relatives of the deceased should be given the opportunity to cross examine, in front of the American people, the Senators and Congressmen *and* the Lobbyists sponsoring them why they block new laws controlling the weapons used to kill their loved ones.

Thoughts and prayers do nothing ..

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Difficult to have a militia without guns... ;)

That guns should be treated like cars, with an addendum - you have to be trained to a certain standard (just like the Armed Forces), you have to be licenced to own one, you are held responsible if someone injures someone (and you didn't mitigate to prevent this), you have to have insurance in case something bad happens, and that they have to be kept securely (the addendum).

---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:53 ----------

Erm, I said "including gun shows", and thirty States still allow the private sale of firearms, including at Gun Shows.

Private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement as Licenced Gun sellers, although this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gun-show-loop/

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Well, you can regulate the entity (the militia) but not the members / their possessions etc. The militia is fair game ; their arsenal is not because it does not belong the militia - it belongs to their members. If the militia owned the guns then fair enough, but it is the members who do. :)

I can get behind a lot of that - I think most, if not all is likely constitutional though I am not 100% sure.

In the UK, for me to own a similar gun (M4 / Uzi .22 etc) I have to go through all the similar procedures and I am fine to do so but am not required to obtain insurance.

In the US though, Insurance may be questionable as it is an inalienable right which you can't be forced to obtain insurance for.

Those same states allow the private sale of guns among anyone of the same state - gun shows are just one specific area / arena that receives no specific benefit nor penalty for gun sales.

Private transactions between two people of the same state are not required to go through any kind of background check in any other circumstance, either.

Yes, absolutely - because they may or do chose not to become a licensed seller.

If it goes interstate / across to the jurisdiction of the federal government then they must get one, irregardless of being a licensed dealer or otherwise. That is a federal statute but state's are not charged with enforcing the statue and some states chose to implement their own checks, others do not.

There is no specific anything to do particularly with "gun shows" though.

The feds cannot come in and expect states to enforce their laws. (Whether it is on guns / sanctuary cities / abortion etc etc).

If states do wish to pass such legislation in their restrictive states, that is their call.

Though usually there are very good reasons not to - cost being one and the burden and so on.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 ----------

Either way, bless you.

So you overlooked my point entirely (or just didn't get it). Why focus on the gun instead of the shooter? Why not ban the criminal, not an inanimate object?

(Thanks for telling me though I am well aware of what massacres were perpetrated by whom using what weapon etc, now back to the question at hand...)

Oh, I got that - but why? Why some arbitrary set of specifications in regards to semi automatics? Btw automatic weapons / new purchases of machine guns remain illegal.

You are yet to tell me why the subset or type? You can't pick an arbitrary group of weapons on a whim (for any particular nefarious purpose) and just whimsically decide to ban it for some lackadaisical reason.

Umm...no. Firstly cross takes place in Court, not Congress. Secondly as much as I feel for the parents, they have no place acting as if they are Senators or Congressman. They do not have the right to do any such thing...they do not have the right to ask questions / subpoena or anything else.

I know you feel that they should have the right / opportunity to do as much but instead of thinking up new fantasies of ideas of what rights that they should and should not have, how about you try not to infringe upon the rights that they already have (like the second amendment).

What a crass thing to say. When a loved one has lost a child / brother etc, you claim that their prayers do nothing?

Wow.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

You are resorting to denial again. Of course the criminal is the focus. The type of weapon he/she uses is also the focus. The massacre in Vegas would not have been possible without the legal procurement of the AR-15 and the like. Try killing/injuring 800+ long range from the 32nd floor of a high rise with a shotgun.


Really, arbitrary set?

arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

BTW, bump stops can be used to simulate fully automatic mode for semi-automatic types. Yes, a new law is proposed to ban these but given the wide option on procurement home & abroad plus the near-future option on using 3D printers to make them at home, the ban would be ineffective.

I have not been clear obviously. Let me try again: semi-automatic guns kill large numbers of people quickly and at long range when compared to other gun types. Clear?

Arbitrary, Whim, Lackadaisical, Nefarious: really?


You are absolutely right, let's not infringe on their rights to kill large numbers of people quickly and at long range if they so choose to do so. I mean what is the cost of human life when compared to the pleasure of impersonating Rambo.

It would be wow indeed if thoughts and prayers brought the dead back to life .... but they don't. They are no substitute

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

The hijackers on September 11th killed almost 3000, using planes...are you seriously advocating that the weapon along with the criminal should be banned?

Odd, the terrorists are dead, we still use commercial aviation...see how the system works?

Like Hugh said though reasonable security and safety measures are totally fine, like for example enhanced measures by the TSA / DHS etc...you don't ban the plane though / the entire method of transportation.

So what else are you basing this on, other than some whimsical notion to ban guns?

Bump stocks, not bump stops. A new law is not necessarily needed to stop the proliferation of bump stocks being used as an accelerator for more rapid re-fire - it can be done easily through existing regulation. Also it modifies a gun so there may be a way of stopping the use through the fact that it amends the intellectual property of the manufacturer.

No, people using the semi automatic guns kill large numbers of people at a long range...clear?

(Otherwise they would just have to use different methods which they will anyway if they are so hell bent on killing so many).

Well how about you come up with a serious proposal to combat the issue of massacres instead of pie in the sky weapons ban fantasies.

Eh? You are hardly infringing on their rights - they'll get a gun illegally if they are going to murder so many people. Clearly breaking the law is of no consequence to them.

It is the rest of us who are law abiding citizens that you will end up infringing upon the rights of.

Neither will banning any of the gun(s) that the killer(s) may have used, either - if that is what you are trying to achieve.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Gun control does not equal a gun ban.We control substances and objects that can be used for violence and damage. We do not BAN them. We don't ban cars,planes,knives and other dangerous items. We seek to have control to mitigate their effects on the public when mishandled.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

whimsical: "playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way"

I do not find the notion of banning sales of semi-automatics capable of killing people at long range in the hundreds "whimsical".

Well I tried. Let try a different tack: why do you *need* to own an AR-15? Not want one, need one.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I’ve had this conversation with US friends, and it becomes circular reasoning, along the lines of "the 2nd Amendment says I can, therefore I will have one, and by having one (or 5), I am supporting the 2nd Amendment, which allows me to have one"...

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I get the "I just want one so I can pretend to be Rambo" argument but I have seen no-one, not least on this forum, explain why they *need* one.

I mean it is not hard, right? Just a single sentence why they need a semi-automatic, just one ... I mean if you can cite the Constitutional Amendments, you should be able to articulate why you need an AR-15.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

This article by an AR-15 owner may clarify things.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/119758...-owner-orlando

I have no issues with someone owning guns, I just think they should be responsible, trained, and "well regulated".

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Thanks for this. This owner seems just to want to own, as he puts it, a "military-grade combat weapon" then tries to justify his choice:

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Well, it is nothing serious anyway. Not the way that you are approaching it, anyway.

Yet you can't seem to come up with a single serious rreason for banning / restricting it.

Okay but first you show me where I said I need one, first. (FYI I have never owned an AR - 15 when I lived in the US).

So where did I say that I needed one?

---------- Post added at 02:11 ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 ----------

Okay, you said to start again, so let's. I have never said I needed one - that clear up that point for you?

Secondly, the constitution does not give rights - the creator does. The constitution limits what the government can do.

So with that in mind, you need to figure out that the burden is not upon anyone to justify whatever their desires are, to anyone absent any restriction from the constitutional confines that we all know of. Follow?

As for why someone may wish to need one, why does anyone have to disclose that to you?

Their choice at the end of the day, the system works. You don't have to justify your behavior to them, they don't to you.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

a) not sure what you mean by that - could you clarify, please?

b) when schoolkids, and others, are killed and maimed on a regular basis, not sure that could be defined as a "system working" - and we forget, in this country, all those injured will often have huge medical bills arising because of these frequent mass shootings.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/171229940

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Did you miss the "it kills large numbers of people at high speed at long range" bit?

Excellent, progress. You accept that you do not need one, good. I will also venture that no one else needs one either. If they do, please explain, in rational terms, the need for ownership?

You are wrong here. The US constitution is the supreme law defined as the will of the people. The constitution defines the legal rights, not just limits them.

Sorry, I do not "follow" ... :confused:

In a civilised society, if you want to own a weapon that has such lethal capabilities then I suggest that you do need to justify to your fellow citizens why you must have this military grade weapon.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

So a bunch of serial killers do harm, your response is to excoriate the weapon / ownership of it?

That doesn't fit as to any possible reason to ban the weapon, IMO.

I didn't need your gratification for that. If ever I did need or want one and it was lawful to purchase it in my locality, I would buy one.

Why? I mean, they don't answer to you nor do they have to justify their desire to buy one, to you or anyone.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.or...ill-of-rights/

The second amendment is one of those 10 amendments, it restricts the government's ability to infringe on gun ownership.

This is basic civics 101. I don't have the time to go through this and explain it to you bit by bit right now but you are categorically wrong on this issue - it has gone through appeal after appeal, courts have affirmed it - decades of fighting and so on. There is no legal or constitutional basis for the government to infringe on the rights of the populace to bear arms.

Hopefully the above has explained some of it. If you do have more questions, I'll answer them in time but Hugh seems to have a pretty good grasp on this. He and I may differ some on the philosophy of all this but his understanding of the technical mechanism of how it all works / the levers and the pulleys etc is accurate. It is difficult for people who do not understand this from a grade school level (being taught it) to pick it up later but your interpretation is not correct on the structure of government.

Yeah again you don't seem to understand how the US system works - you do not need to justify anything when you exercise a right - not in the slightest. The US may not be a civilized society in your opinion but that is all it is - your opinion. And your opinion does not allow you to infringe upon the rights of others.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I am not sure if you mean to patronise but that is how you certainly come across.

I was answering your assertion:

I was not referring to the 2nd Amendment specifically. You asserted that the "constitution does not give rights" and I suggest that you are wrong in this assertion.

Ironically, you referred to the Bill of Rights, I guess the clue is in the title?

You clearly do not accept the basic premise that selling weapons of mass murder on the open market is wrong and so let's agree to differ?

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Yeah we can agree to differ though the way you word it is like "look the mass murdering weapons are something that I do not like but you do so let us just discuss this no more" which is way too much cringe. How would you like it if I said "yes we can agree to disagree that you believe that the rights afforded in the bill of rights should be trampled upon, and I don't". Wording it like that would make vomit / I would feel so dirty that I would probably need to take a bath.

The bill of Rights are the amendments to the constitution btw - the second amendment is a part of the bill of rights. The constitution is to do with limitations on government power, the bill of rights are what rights that individuals have.

As for meaning to patronize...yeah okay I'll cop that one. It was a rather condescending and patronizing post (talking about grade school / civics 101 etc) and yeah, maybe I did mean it even to be patronizing / come off as a school teacher. I will try not to be a bitch about it all. :)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I’m all for the 2nd Amendment- a well regulated militia...

Of course, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t so contentious until the 70s/80s.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...endment-106856 tl:dr - until the 70s, the current viewpoint didn’t have any traction; a new leadership took over the NRA, and then the lobbying, articles, and legal challenges began...

(or, as it’s called nowadays- the National Guard/Air National Guard)

;)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Btw Hugh I still have to reply to post number 66 to you but the double post feature makes it look all messy so I'll leave it a couple hours and then hit a message back on that one, soon to you. :) (Thanks for your patience!)

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Fascinating answers from US Gun Owners to the question:

Is there a valid justification for individuals to own assault rifles?

Some of them echo the point you are making i.e.

Fascinating ... but what these people and I suggest you also, Chloé, are missing is that these people already have a line drawn in the sand that precludes them from buying certain gun types.

As you pointed out, you cannot buy or own a fully automatic weapon. People seem to accept it and the "militia" are not building barricades in the street to protest?

So we have the concept of a line over which you must not step. There is a boundary, it exists. All that is suggested is that the boundary is adjusted in light of gun evolution and the uses of said guns in mass killings.

If you apply the logic of the arguments made in this article to their logical conclusion then all guns should be legally available since, as one of them puts it:

It seems to me that you accept lines in the sand and then a consensus can be sought on where this is drawn or you accept the inexorable conclusion of the 2nd Amendment and accept that citizens should have the right to own any weapon that is available to the Military.

The assertion that:

only has meaning if said militia is capable of parity, in military terms, with the Armed forces of the Government it is there to insure against.

To do this, it needs to own and deploy commensurate levels of weaponry which is clearly ridiculous so, in my opinion, justifying the need to bear arms capable of more than reasonable levels of self defensive capability is an historical anachronism.

The Prosecution rests ..

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

The militia was to defend their home States against foreign enemies or internal insurrection, not it’s own forces - fighting against the US Government /Armed Forces would be treason, so why would they need parity for an illegal reason?

In Article I, Section 8 (the Militia Clause) of the US Constitution, it states:

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I disagree, the reading I have done implies the opposite. Any foreign enemies or internal insurrection would be, correctly, dealt with by the National defence forces.

Here's an interpretation of what I and the Gun owners alluded to:

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Wow, almost 3 weeks late, sorry for my tardy timing and I assure you I haven't forgotten about the post.

Okay so a lot of traditional intellectual / conservative thinking of the foundation of the land is that almost all of the rights we all have as human beings, are from God, and that they are inalienable. The creator granted them to us, no man / government etc shall take them away.

I.e., natural rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Examples of contemporary definitions of this are the declaration of independence, the Universal declaration of HR etc etc.

This very much gets into the weeds and is very very wonkish / much more than my liking / to my chagrin. To the extent that there are discussions as to whether the word is "unalienable" or "inalienable":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e092083ecc6b

Anyway I digress (I better get to the point or I will max out the bandwidth for this site).

Basically (to get right to the point) in arguing that the right is not granted by the constitution but that the document restricts what the government can do is a very big legal distinction.

The second amendment states:

Now I could keep talking about this for days but in quick terms (even the topic does deserve a much longer reply) the rights that God has given man come from God. The US constitution forbids man (the government) from infringing upon them. Is the way the document is created. Now I am in no way saying that it is your or my God given right to own a gun - that is not what I would determine to be a basic human right (not in this day and age).

However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state).

That was my point to Ianch99 ; there is a distinction (not one without a difference) that the constitution does not in any way grant the right to own a gun, it merely restricts the government from banning you bearing a gun - does that make sense?

I can't apologize enough for that comment - it was crass and unwarranted. Sometimes in arguing politics with seasonal political minds, I tended to hear arguments to the effect of "knowing what gun violence leads to the founders would still be in favor of something that carried out the lines in the DoI - because you can't have life or liberty preserved without the ability to defend it". None the less (true or not) I don't want to make excuses for my comments / try to justify them...the flippancy was inexcusable and I am sorry. I have a young daughter and I could only imagine how upset I would be if something happened to her due to gun violence. My apologies for the comment.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I think you missed the 2 points I raised:

1. to be a "well regulated Militia", as defined by the Founding Fathers, you must bear Arms that are commensurate to those of the Standing Army. If you do not, then you are not the Militia as intended in the original design and consequently are unable to use this defense to justify your wish to own near-military grade weapons.

2. you said "However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state) This does not match reality I am afraid. There is a line in the sand: fully automatic weapons. The Government *does* restrict the population on the type of guns they can own. The precedent has been set, all that is being debated is where to now move it to.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

If I might be so bold, the US Constitution serves two purposes. First, it establishes a purpose for having a central government to manage affairs between the states as well as affairs of common interest to all the states. Second, it mandates a certain structure for that government and restricts the powers that the central government shall be allowed to have. Basically it is an acknowledgement by the several states that, in the interests of mutual security and the prospects for international prosperity, there should be a central government BUT that the central government should be closely watched and held accountable by the states lest it become oppressive.

The US Constitution grants no rights to the citizens but, rather, was designed to protect the natural rights of the citizens from intrusion by the government. It is an expression of "negative rights" (those which exist without regard to government) rather than "positive rights" (those which government bestows upon the people). For example, the 13th Amendment does not grant a right of individual liberty. It merely proscribes the government from restricting that right. In this same way the 2nd Amendment proscribes the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Now, from a practical standpoint, there will be times where the unlimited exercise of personal choice by one person has a negative impact on the free exercise of rights by another. That is where the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments come in; all of which limit the actions government can take if and when the time comes to restrict a person's liberty. These Amendments prohibit the broad restriction of any natural right and generally mandate that reasonable cause be given before a right can be restricted.

If we view the 2nd Amendment through the filter of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments it becomes clear that broad restrictions WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE would be unconstitutional. In 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act which was an attempt to establish such "proper cause" especially with regard to fully automatic weapons. The law was challenged in US v Miller (1939) and some specifics to "proper cause" were established. The Miller decision was a total sham but, precedent being what it is, has yet to be completely overturned. The US courts have been, are, and likely will continue to be, unduly influenced by public opinion.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I see the 2nd Amendment quote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as a clear historical anachronism when applied to the individual citizen and, as I argued in my earlier posts, should be ignored in the context of today's society. Of course this all depends on how you interpret the commas in the quote :) I see it as the "people" being part of the "well regulated militia" hence the historical anachronism.

So, what that leaves us with is the *nature* of the weapons that the citizen should be authorised to own, or to put in the inverse wording of your argument, the weapons that he/she should be not be allowed to own.

There is already a line in the sand, a precedent agreed and implemented, namely fully automatic weapons. What I personally think the US needs now, in light of the recent events relating to mass murder by semi/"modified to near full" automatic weapons is a redrawing of that line in the sand.

The line is there, just move it. The precedent is set and uncontested so with the consensus of the majority, it seems sensible to move the line and save lives. Saving lives seems a "proper cause" .. I know of no better one.

I have not seen, so far, a well argued position on why someone *needs* a semi automatic weapon for personal use at home. Needs one .. not wants one ...