|
Post by beth on Oct 4, 2015 7:42:52 GMT -5
You're complicating it unnecessarily, Men an tol. Nothing to do with the "gun police" knocking at the door. I meant ... if guns used in murder come from a person or persons who have not secured them but made them available to the killers, they should have to face punishment. Simple really. We just need the laws on the books ... if we can ever get past the bought and paid for politicians who benefit from insisting there's nothing they can do. Beth, having guns in the house is not making guns available, handing the killer the gun makes the person who gave the gun aiding and abetting the commission of the crime. However, just having the gun in the house (if that is what you are driving at) and the killer took the gun without the owners permission or knowledge, no crime was committed. Securing a gun is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly keeping the gun in a gun safe is one way of securing the gun. But if the gun is in that gun safe and your grandma can't reach it when someone attacks her, that type of securing is no different than killing her. I suggest that the laws that are needed are already enacted. That in addition to that insurance companies add to this by putting liability restrictions on the gun owner. If additional laws are in acted it is very likely that guns people own will start disappearing as the honest people will start hiding them and the black market in guns will begin to grow. In fact, honest people will become law breakers due to overly restrictive laws. I stand by my position. Anyone who would argue against making gun owners more responsible is simply parroting the NRA cue cards. If there were no recurring problem of all these dead people, it might make sense. As it is, something a little more drastic seems in order.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 4, 2015 22:02:36 GMT -5
There are some Irish Mercers, the name in England is most common in the North East the bit near to Ireland (Lancashire area I think). cWhy should his existence be on no importance? He is a human being after all. Perhaps that is the problem, the USA is a very selfish society. Is this him? mercers in Ireland...well the name is English in origin..but even the Irish needed materials so maybe a mercer went to Ireland..who knows kronks wrote ..Why should his existence be on no importance?""" I have no idea but his low self esteem would make him think that way......he may be a human being but human beings are not all happy little bundles of fun...this chap certainly wasn't kronks wrote...""Perhaps that is the problem, the USA is a very selfish society""" oh my word cannot resist a nasty remark to America....the world is full of weirdos..misfits and wannabes its not just America that has problems with introverted insignificant males it happens in all societies which value progress..invention and innovation and that have high standards of living it is beging to happen in china too[check that out] any simply cannot stand the pressure and the unspoken unseen presures males more so than females who realise they cannot cut it and will not achieve to the extent of family, friends and expectation..and freak out in various ways and to various degrees[being a member of a gang is one recognised way of trying to empower ones self] and the new sleb culture doesn't help..young women and young men who want their 5mins of fame or notoriety but to young men it appears to them to be part of their manhood or lack of it and what better way to instant fame and having your name known...than a mass kill...not for them the hard way of work..industry..skill..determination..so introverted and selfish are they that only THEY matter..their angst..their feelings etc and so bang bang it should also be noted that America and China have exceeding large population and visible success is the desire in general of both societies..that in its self places a big burden on individuals western Europe..the middle east Africa etc etc all have their problems with inadequate young males which shows its self in different ways in their societies Well it does seem more common in the USA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryFrance and Germany have quite a few guns too by the look of it but do not seem to experience the same number of mass shootings. It is related to inequality IMO, the USA is one of the most unequal advanced countries, it is the "every man for himself society". Society does not care much for those who do not make it there so is it any wonder those who do not make it do not care much for society? I would add that most countries are essentially run by gangs, I mean surely they would have been running the show in ancient society and the leader of the biggest gang would become King?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 5, 2015 4:06:21 GMT -5
it is not the numbers of guns which is the problem...it is some of the the people who acess them... and yes it is about inequality...but not the inequality that you mean....it is NOT the inequality of a capitalist or socialist society or indeed any society.. but the inequality of ability...human beings are not born equal..equality in the natural world does not exist.. equality is a false premise a political construct and the very best we can hope for is the the equality of opportunity..what individuals do with their opportunities is up to them and indeed society doesn't have much time for those who don't make it...wether by their own laziness or inability or the squandering of opportunities...but is that every one elses fault or problem ? but males in particular who cannot attain what their fathers/grandfathers/siblings etc attained for what ever reason should not turn around and blame society for their failing and inadequasies....nor should society take the blame for those failings. human beings are not equal nor are they born equal nor should they expect to be equal except in law and opportunity...the rest is up to the individual and their families
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 7, 2015 13:33:58 GMT -5
As I said if society owes no duty of care to them then likewise they owe no duty of care to society.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Oct 7, 2015 18:58:57 GMT -5
I am having trouble getting this to c&p. There is a video clip and much more to the article at the link. Online writings about guns, Asperger's linked to Oregon shooter's mom )—The apparent online writings of the mother of the man who killed nine people at a community college in Oregon discuss guns and the autism spectrum, painting a partial picture of the environment the family lived in, their beliefs and the challenges they faced. Online posts linked to Laurel Harper, mother of the gunman, are limited and incomplete, but they seem to indicate two things: that her son, Chris Harper-Mercer, had a developmental disorder, and that the family had a familiarity with firearms and gun laws. On Tuesday, a spokesman for the agencies looking into last week's fatal shooting told CNN that investigators are aware of Harper's alleged social media postings and her son's online writings. Sgt. Jeff Eichenbusch of Roseburg police said that Harper is part of the investigation, just as would be any person who was close to the gunman. www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts/
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 7, 2015 20:39:28 GMT -5
It is worth bearing in mind that there are 30 gun homicide a day on average (11,000 annually), so he is responsible for about 1/3 or the days 'quota'. Or less than 0.1%.
So whatever the causes of this particular incident it is a tiny part of the overall picture.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 8, 2015 3:46:54 GMT -5
As I said if society owes no duty of care to them then likewise they owe no duty of care to society. You can't have your cake and eat it. but society in this case fulfilled its duty of care...it provided the means of equal opportunity via its provision of education and law..and a peaceful and secure area to live and there fore this man owed society his duty of care for that society in return in this particular case it would appear the family was lacking in care and even went further by facilating this mans behaviour and acess to lethal weaponary society was NOT responsible for this mans behaviour...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 8, 2015 3:57:12 GMT -5
It is worth bearing in mind that there are 30 gun homicide a day on average (11,000 annually), so he is responsible for about 1/3 or the days 'quota'. Or less than 0.1%. So whatever the causes of this particular incident it is a tiny part of the overall picture. its also worth noting that many areas of the world have acess to guns..indeed I live in such an area..an area where guns are not unknown an area where there are several shooting ranges..which have large memberships and are over subscribed and also an area where the guns can be heard at night and yet I don't know of one incident of those guns being used against another person..in the last 50+ years [of course if we look at the criminal element then guns are par for the course..but that is mainly a city and gang thing and cannot be counted as part of this particular type of usage]
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 9, 2015 16:52:32 GMT -5
That "honest citizen" needs to be required to accept responsibility for gun ownership. There should be restrictions that require (s)he take steps to keep said gun(s) out of the hands of those who are a danger when they are armed. Then, if they allow their weapon(s) to get into the hands of the bad guys, they should be punished as suits the crime. It's vital that gun ownership be taken seriously. Right now, it is not. Beth you just don't get it, do you. Gun ownership isn't a privilege. It's a right. We don't ask people to abridge their freedom of speech in the name of public safety. Why impair lawful gun owners? IF you want to repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is what all the idiot Europeans want, argue that. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 9, 2015 22:43:02 GMT -5
That "honest citizen" needs to be required to accept responsibility for gun ownership. There should be restrictions that require (s)he take steps to keep said gun(s) out of the hands of those who are a danger when they are armed. Then, if they allow their weapon(s) to get into the hands of the bad guys, they should be punished as suits the crime. It's vital that gun ownership be taken seriously. Right now, it is not. Beth you just don't get it, do you. Gun ownership isn't a privilege. It's a right. We don't ask people to abridge their freedom of speech in the name of public safety. Why impair lawful gun owners? IF you want to repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is what all the idiot Europeans want, argue that. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. It would be pointless to advocate getting rid of guns. But, I do believe gun owners should be responsible. Don't leave an arsenal of weapons out where a mentally shaky family member or acquaintance has easy access. If they do and those guns (even one of them) are used to take lives, the owner should share in the guilt and the punishment.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 10, 2015 0:10:04 GMT -5
Beth you just don't get it, do you. Gun ownership isn't a privilege. It's a right. We don't ask people to abridge their freedom of speech in the name of public safety. Why impair lawful gun owners? IF you want to repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is what all the idiot Europeans want, argue that. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. It would be pointless to advocate getting rid of guns. But, I do believe gun owners should be responsible. Don't leave an arsenal of weapons out where a mentally shaky family member or acquaintance has easy access. If they do and those guns (even one of them) are used to take lives, the owner should share in the guilt and the punishment. Beth, I suggest that what you are suggesting already does exist and has for a long time. A gun is like any other property I own. I am responsible for it. Not just how I use it, but when I invite others to use it, and even when someone uses it without my knowledge or permission. For example, assume I have a swimming pool in the backyard. If I just have it there and I have done nothing to prepare for the possibility of its misuse, clearly I am responsible, if someone is injured (or dies) through misusing it even if I am not aware of that use. Suppose then I put a fence around that backyard and, the 4 year old next door climbs the fence to use the pool, I still have an owner responsibility for what happens. It is called an attractive nuisance and I should have seen the possibility of someone climbing the fence and using the pool. Suppose it is an above ground pool and I invite adults to come to a backyard get together and use the pool. During that use water gets splashed around and gets on the steps on the side of the pool. The steps become slippery and a neighbor goes up the steps slips and falls and breaks his neck. As the owner I am still responsible. This type of owner responsibility goes to everything I own. No one has to believe me, just ask the company that is the liability insurer on your home. The point is today, right now, the gun you own causes you to have the same level of liability as with any other personally owned chattel property. What I am saying is that the often expressed concern for the responsibility of the of the gun owner is misplaced because it already exists. I understand that there are people who are very concerned about private ownership of guns and want to place more restrictions of additional responsibility on that gun owner, however, that is a dead issue because a gun falls under the 2nd Amendment as an 'Individual Right.' and therefore such restrictions specifically focused on owners of guns is not legal. If there is a strong desire of a large portion of the population to have more restrictions of that type (something I do not believe exists), it will have to begin with a Constitutional Amendment and even then it may not be deemed Constitutionally legal because it is restricting an Individual Right. The smart thing to do is to work so that every local community works to have every person (gun owner of not) go through a gun owner course. But that will never happen. For example, many people have dogs and people have little understanding as to what a dog is and how to train a dog and what their liability as to the dog is. It is very similar to owning a gun and most people resist such training, and even those that go to dog training, not more than half of them will ever understand what a dog is and how it must be cared for. Here is a need every bit as serious as a person's relationship to guns, and there is no Constitutional restriction to passing laws and yet such laws are not passed. I suggest that we (as a people) should stop being concerned about new gun laws and rather focus on out communities and how to develop citizen responsibility to the community. If we did so, most of these problems would at lease would decrease.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 10, 2015 0:52:23 GMT -5
In spite of your arguments, I stand by my opinion. Here's an interesting c&p. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[15]
foot note references, here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 10, 2015 9:54:48 GMT -5
In spite of your arguments, I stand by my opinion. Here's an interesting c&p. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[15]
foot note references, here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionThis is really one of the better Wikipedia subjects and it provides many of the sources applicable to this subject. If one reads the body of this wikipedia article the is within it references to Justice Story (one of the greatest Constitutional Scholars) and Lysander Spooner with two of the quite important views on this subject, herein copied: Joseph Story Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment. Lysander Spooner Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted. Spooner's theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment. An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a "right of resistance" is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment. The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves. ************************ Even so, the case listed here that is most disappointing is United States v. Miller [1939]. as what is listed provides a perspective quite different from the actual text of the case. First, when it came to the court the attorney (Gordon Dean) for Miller sent to the court that he was unable to attend due to lack of funds and that he then suggested that the court rely on the Prosecution case for its decision. Today that would be considered malpractice, but the point is that the case for the defense was never factually heard by the court. More over, in the opinion of the court (delivered by Justice McReynolds) offered that sense there was no evidence presented that the gun (a sawed off shotgun) was of use to military functions that could not be considered in the defense. However left unstated (because the court cannot of itself introduce evidence) was the reality that such a gun type was used by the military during World War I. The case was remanded back to the lower court, but before it could be retried Miller was murdered and the other defendant entered a plea bargin. So while this case is often cited as the justification for the government to restrict gun use, such was never really adjudicated in this case. More over the the foundation for the case was the regulations established by the National Firearms Act which in subsequent cases was judged unconstitutional based on the idea that it is not a revenue measure but rather a federal attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States ant also offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment. ****************** As you point out these are interesting (to say the least) cases and acts. Even so, in the context of the subject of the thread, I still fail to see what can be don (in terms of law) that realistically changes in a positive way the responsibility of the gun owner beyond the current law applicable to the ownership of any chattel property. In my opinion any such attempt would fail due to the unrealistic nature of such laws and in addition would ultimately be judged as unconstitutional. In taking such a path years would be wasted going down a dead end path with no benefit while our societal responsibilities would continue unchanged.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Oct 10, 2015 10:02:57 GMT -5
Menantol, perspectives suggest they are mostly the opinion of the author. That in turn suggests it is mostly a matter of politics.
I am interested to hear what some in congress are getting ready to purpose in connection with better gun safety laws. I hope there will be a discussion thread on that subject here.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 10, 2015 13:02:26 GMT -5
Menantol, perspectives suggest they are mostly the opinion of the author. That in turn suggests it is mostly a matter of politics. I am interested to hear what some in congress are getting ready to purpose in connection with better gun safety laws. I hope there will be a discussion thread on that subject here. That is a good point Jessiealan, there is a lot of opinion. We could even say that opinions of the court (which are issued with every case) are only the opinion of the author as it is quite common that differing perspectives are issued by the justices of the court, often even when they all vote the same. The Constitution didn't define the Supreme Court in terms of its absolute powers or in its acts and it was Chief Justice John Marshall who made that foundation in Marbury v. Madison in two parts. First the court could not rule on some issue outside of its jurisdiction and, secondly this case provided the foundation and definition of the process of Judicial review. Other things came from this case, such as, the law means what the Supreme Court says what it means. At the time of this case that was not accepted by all such as President Jefferson wanting the Executive to make such decisions. The other thing is that, the Constitution itself is the supreme law, and when the Court believes that a specific law or action is in violation of it, the Court must uphold the Constitution and set aside that other law or action, assuming that a party has standing to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall famously put the matter this way: “ . . . It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . “ Marshall, during "Marbury v. Madison" also stated on the constitution: “ . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void. . . . “ Today such things seem so acceptable that it is hard to imagine a time when there was not that understanding and acceptance. So yes Jessie Alan, it will be interesting to see what the Congress enacts as to guns, but unless it meets Constitutional muster, it will mean nothing. Consider, the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Individual Right and the Supreme Court has agreed to this both at the federal level and at the State level. This right predates and exists outside of the Constitution. The Second Amendment merely bars the government from impacting that Individual Right and doesn't grant it. Think of what that Second Amendment states: “ . . . 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. . . . “ Both of the most recent cases before the Supreme Court define this as an Individual Right. A right that stands alone and not molded or impinged on by the necessity of a Militia. More over, it doesn't say to not pass a law but rather says that this right shall not be infringed. In other words government cannot do anything to alter or weaken that Individual Right, a much stronger statement. So yes, it will be interesting to see what the Congress shall pass about guns.
|
|