5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift rifle

reply to post by JuniorDisco


But they see death everyday. Death by gun several times a day.

If they dont think that death will happen why would they think they'd get a ticket?

How many people do you see speeding on the highway? How many get ticketed? How many slam into trees? Yet the speeders keep on speeding.

No policy, regulation or law can affect stupidity.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

if there are limits to road speed then why do they make cars that can go several times faster than those limits?

Not all countries have similar speed limits, or indeed any limits. I take your point but I'm not sure how relevant it is or what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting we limit cars to statutory speed limits?

on a side note there are all kinds of accidents and many thousands of young kids surrounded daily by guns with no accidents. if the situation was that bad you'd be hearing about this all the time. ever hear of kids being saved by guns who would've probably been killed without one?

I think it's safe to say that the legality of guns kills more kids than it saves. But anyway, all I'm asking is that those who advocate wide gun ownership acknowledge that their choice means some children will die unnecessarily.

Many are unwilling to do this, even with other objects. Look how worried Butcherguy became above when I brought home this truth to him, and how defensive he became. It's not everyone's idea of a good time, the truth, but it remains impossible to refute.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

Anyway, what's your point?

What point is there anyway?
This entire site is pointless.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more:
it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5
goodbye

reply to post by butcherguy


I knew you were going to say that.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

But they see death everyday. Death by gun several times a day.

If they dont think that death will happen why would they think they'd get a ticket?

How many people do you see speeding on the highway? How many get ticketed? How many slam into trees? Yet the speeders keep on speeding.

No policy, regulation or law can affect stupidity.

edit on 7-5-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

No, that's my point. But it can affect behaviour.

People speed and smash into trees and die because they don't think it will happen to them. You have your logic precisely the wrong way around - a penalty as big as dying doesn't deter fools because they don't think they will die. But a fine that they see administered does have some effect and license revocation (which is only possible with licenses) prevents people from driving almost completely.

The guys with the loaded gun by the door don't wander about thinking "hey that might kill me and my kid, but so what?" They think "that loaded gun won't kill me or my kid" because they are idiots. But if someone comes in and fines them 1000 dollars for not properly storing the gun, and then subsequently takes away their license, chances are they will start to store it properly. or not own a gun. Anyway, result = no dead kid.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


And you seem to have missed the whole bit about traffic tickets not working.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

And you seem to have missed the whole bit about traffic tickets not working.

No I didn't, I even mentioned it specifically.

They do work. To discourage traffic violations. The fact that they haven't eradicated infringements doesn't mean they haven't reduced them. The very act of licensing has made it much harder for repeat offenders to speed or drive dangerously.

Are you saying that financial penalties don't work? That taxes are not distortionary? I find this highly unlikely.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Responsible gun owner store them correctly.

My point was they were stupid enough to have left the gun out regardless of laws. I do not need a law to tell me what I already know when it comes to gun safety and storage.

Raist

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I can always use a gun to hunt and feed my family. A car does me no good in the way of hunting, neither will a car help protect me from someone wishing my harm inside my home or at the store.


Raist

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Taxes are another animal entirely. Tens of millions of people assume they wont get or simply dont care if they do get a ticket.

Taxes are imposed and assumed. There's no way for me to not pay sales tax at the store. As an employee there's no way for me to avoid income taxes. As a home owner there's no way for me to avoid property taxes.

I cant earn a wage and believe I'll never be taxed but I can very easily drive 10 miles over the limit day after day and assume to never be ticketed.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Responsible gun owner store them correctly.

My point was they were stupid enough to have left the gun out regardless of laws.

They are not responsible gun owners, that's the whole point. If you allow indiscriminate gun ownership you will get tragedies because idiots will own them. Unless you think all the idiots are going to magically disappear. My contention is that if they saw people fined punitively for this behaviour they would be less likely to do it.

They may not understand basic safety but they probably understand money.

I do not need a law to tell me what I already know when it comes to gun safety and storage.


You don't. But they do.

reply to post by Raist


Yes, I know. But if you could only have one, would you choose a car or gun? And what do you think most people would choose?

The vast majority would choose a car because they are more useful under current circumstances.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Well a lot of those in this area also have family in the military. A good number of those members would likely join their families in the fight bringing with them what ever equipment they could. I suspect the military/police would be split down the middle if it came to a hostile take over of the public.

While there was something with the recent bombing suspects I am not sure many more of those would fly either. I think it largely depends on the area. There are plenty of people around here that are good people but they like to have their fun (some make their own drink or grow their own plants). They like to protect their own place with lethal force.

You do not want to be caught walking on someone's property around here, some of them are likely to shoot you.

Some of these people around here are hard core.

Raist

Maybe your right.

To be honnest I think liberty died in the US when the CIA/FBI/NSA were allowed to get so powerfully coupled with the giagantic millitary complex you have....And abandoned the idea of localy run and lead militias.

I can see civilwar happening when things are pushed to far...but I dont see that civil war ending in naything but diffeat

If everyone had kept up with the old ideas of a private citzen army in each town you would have a powerfull force. Especialy if they were allowed to buy thing like Anti Aircrcat weapons ect.

I know you say the military will split but Im unsure on how much "hardware" they could take. Alot of the US Military equipmnet requires alot of logitics support. If the rebels dont have that ready set up or something planed than any captured militray equipment is next to useless.

Your only hope really would be to use that weakness on the goverment as if you can fck up there logitics then all there tec and equipment ends up useless too. In which case the USA turns into a syria.......

If that happend North Korea and Iran will be all over the world doing what they want. And China and Russia most likley go on a bender seizing old terrortys like Tawain ect.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Taxes are another animal entirely. Tens of millions of people assume they wont get or simply dont care if they do get a ticket.

Taxes are imposed and assumed. There's no way for me to not pay sales tax at the store. As an employee there's no way for me to avoid income taxes. As a home owner there's no way for me to avoid property taxes.

I cant earn a wage and believe I'll never be taxed but I can very easily drive 10 miles over the limit day after day and assume to never be ticketed.

But then you are simply talking about effective enforcement. And you seem to be saying that taxes are effective, so if penalties were also 100 per cent effective then they too would be, presumably?

If you thought that there was, every day, a 10 per cent chance that you would receive a $1000 fine for doing what these guys did, would you continue to do it? Do you think they would? Furthermore do you think they would risk losing their right to own weapons rather as someone loses their right to drive if they thought there was a high chance of them being caught?

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I have no problem with background checks.

Great. Me too...and IMO the less folks that are able to easily circumvent background checks...the less likely it is I will need to use the guns I legally own. No system is perfect, but reducing the numbers of criminals or mentally ill gun owners is a good thing.

Originally posted by Raist
I also need to clarify that I am for background checks but no record keeping of those checks. Meaning that once the check is through nothing is kept showing that you had a check to purchase a firearm. I am strictly against firearm registration.

Not sure how this would work. I suppose you are fearful of government over-reach or confiscation, but how would law enforcement validate that you legally own your weapon? Perhaps the dealer where the gun is purchased is required to keep valid records and reciepts, but not tuen them over to ATF unless the owner requests validation or the ATF provides a warrant with probable cause that a weapon is owned illegally??

Originally posted by Raist
Still though none of the laws written would have prevented this from happening. You cannot fix stupid people. No amount of laws will get stupid people to do things. The only way this could have been prevented was for the parents to have some firearms sense and abide by the safety rules. Instead their stupidity sacrificed their youngest child.

Yes, but stupid people tend to be repeat offenders, as drunk drivers prove daily. Can we not have laws that confiscate weapons if an owner's child is found running around thier yard with Dad's rifle or pistol playing cops and robbers?

Originally posted by Raist
As far as gun bans and confiscations there are plenty of cities or states working on that. It does not have to be the federal government doing it to be wrong.

As far as "confiscation"...that is a misnomer. Even the most draconian of laws include grandfather clauses and antiquities excaptions. Even in places where full "Assault Weapons" bans have been instituted, it is for future purchases. If you own one already, no one is "comming for" that gun.

And the irony in opposing state level laws is the fact that you would require Federal intervention to over-turn those laws, like the NRA lobbied successfully to do in Chicago.

So are we for big gov. and against states rights... when it suits our idealogy?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

But then you are simply talking about effective enforcement. And you seem to be saying that taxes are effective, so if penalties were also 100 per cent effective then they too would be, presumably?

I'll give you that. How would you make unsafe storage penalties 100 enforced to be effective?

If you thought that there was, every day, a 10 per cent chance that you would receive a $1000 fine for doing what these guys did, would you continue to do it? Do you think they would? Furthermore do you think they would risk losing their right to own weapons rather as someone loses their right to drive if they thought there was a high chance of them being caught?

Hate to break it to you but everyday people commit several felonies punishable by a year or more in prison and very high fines without even knowing or simply without caring there even is a law. 3 felonies a day

So would I? Chances are I already did at least once today and so have you.

Originally posted by crazyewok

I can see civilwar happening when things are pushed to far...but I dont see that civil war ending in naything but diffeat

I think people place far too much credence in the concept of Gov. vs. People.

We still have the healthiest democracy in the world. It is why we have gridlock Our government is constructed with infinite safeguards against tyranny.

If genuine tyranny ever approached...the people...in the form of our government...would by impeaching, arresting and trying politicians long before shots were fired. Our military after all is made up of our sons and daughters...and as congress proves to us daily...our government is not a homogeneous crew...anything but.

We honestly don't have the mechanisms for a tyranical dictatorship...each POTUS only gets 4 years before the people weigh in again. Ditto Congress et al. every couple years.

Originally posted by Indigo5




I think people place far too much credence in the concept of Gov. vs. People.

We still have the healthiest democracy in the world. It is why we have gridlock

Our government is constructed with infinite safeguards against tyranny.

I would hardly call your 2 party system healthy.

Originally posted by Indigo5


If genuine tyranny ever approached...the people...in the form of our government...would by impeaching, arresting and trying politicians long before shots were fired. Our military after all is made up of our sons and daughters...and as congress proves to us daily...our government is not a homogeneous crew...anything but.

We honestly don't have the mechanisms for a tyranical dictatorship...each POTUS only gets 4 years before the people weigh in again. Ditto Congress et al. every couple years.

Fact is tyranny is already seeping in. The USA has to have been one of the most opressive places I have been secruity wise. And like most countrys with "democracys" your two main parts are basicaly the same. Same # diffrent colours. Yes your Congress can stop things but they have let alot of things slide through already.

A tyranical goverment does not nessarly have to be a dictatorship. All it needs is to have your two main partys under some sort of control.

And as I said tyranny is slowly seeping in. The adverage reality TV watching dumbwit does not notice. As I said before no ones seems to have stood up and stoped the patriot act, establisment of the TSA, forcefully entering people homes without warrent, forceing innocent people to give finger prints ect

Hell even in the UK we havent let that happen!

I would be very very concerned about your country right now.....I am cause I know if the USA goes rogue the UK will follow.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

I'll give you that. How would you make unsafe storage penalties 100 enforced to be effective?

I don't think you could. But I don't think they require 100 per cent enforcement to have some effect.

There is, I shouldn't have to point out, a range between zero and 100. If penalties seem at least plausibly likely to occur and carry a harsh enough fine then they will act as a deterrent. You may not like this but it is true.

Hate to break it to you but everyday people commit several felonies punishable by a year or more in prison and very high fines without even knowing or simply without caring there even is a law. 3 felonies a day

So would I? Chances are I already did at least once today and so have you.

You didn't really answer the question. It is possible to enforce laws - that's obvious - and it's possible to deter people from taking certain actions. The whole tax system is founded on that fact. So are vast parts of the criminal legal system.

Just because someone breaks a law doesn't make that law or its penalty ineffective. To prove this ou would have to show that nobody at all had ever been deterred from breaking it. And you would have to show that systems like imprisonment and license removal don't result in reductions in lawbreaking. Which I think you would find quite difficult.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Just because someone breaks a law doesn't make that law or its penalty ineffective. To prove this ou would have to show that nobody at all had ever been deterred from breaking it. And you would have to show that systems like imprisonment and license removal don't result in reductions in lawbreaking. Which I think you would find quite difficult.

Not as difficult as you may think.

The effectiveness, or rather ineffectiveness, of our penal system has been a topic of study for as long as there have been jails.

Prison is a poor deterrent

Sentencing and Deterrance

Evidence that prison doesnt deter

Literally millions of papers out there. Have access to Ebsco or Lexis?

Here's something more akin to your proposal: Texting laws not working

And this is the point in the thread where you begin linking papers and research to support your claim.

Which means we're done and can go no further.