Shooting instructor dies after being accidentally shot by girl

[Kulindahr]

Anything that is designed with military use is to be specifically military. Ie, no civilian ownership outside of collectors who've permanently disabled them or had them permanently disabled. Usage is negotiable within exceptionally tight restraints.

The number of firearms you can own depends entirely on what they are, and whether or not they are operational.

Rifles, shotguns, and air rifles would constitute the lowest class. Nothing semi-automatic here. A general license only allows a civilian to own one, though one can apply (along with increasingly stringent storage and safety criteria) to own more after a probationary period of 6 months, with no theoretical limit (granted that one must wait a further six months for each successive firearm. No limit for deactivated (with no requirement for training).

Antique firearms, if operational, would have have slightly more stringent storage and safety requirements. Older firearms are less predictable and more prone to accidents, though getting a license would not be any more difficult than the above category. A license for antique firearms ownership/usage is good for any number antique firearms (no limit).

A separate class for semi-automatic. Both ownership and licensing would be severely restricted. Ordinary civilians, outside of collectors, occupational shooters and primary producers, will be unlikely to obtain a license without proof of genuine need. Those licensed have no limit on the number they may own (because they will be quite unattainable for the vast majority of civilians). So-called "civilian variant" of military firearms fall under this category.

Handgun sales and ownership would be among the most tightly controlled. No civilian may personally own more than 1 operational handgun at any time (again without proof of genuine need). Handguns constitute the greatest liability, both to the owner and society. They are easily stolen, often used against the owner in home entries, easiest to conceal, and the kind most often used in domestic violence. Licenses to operate would be similar to the lowest class.

None of the above have any limit for the number of deactivated weapons one may own, though I would call for a separate storage license for any more than 5 firearms.

No magazines holding greater than 10 rounds.

Fully automatic self loading firearms are banned outright. (along with machine guns, artillery and bazookas). Deactivated are legal. Separate storage license.

Nobody is *forcing* anybody to disable their legally owned firearms. Bare in mind, they will cease to be legally owned firearms if the owner cannot acquire the proper credentials by the end of the grace period. At which point, they'd be fined, and be required to either turn them over to the authorities (without the option of the government buy-back at top-dollar), sell them to somebody who is licensed (if the firearm in question is indeed legal to own for some, then they could attempt to sell them to a dealer), or disable them within 180 days.

Who wants someone without (or is unable to acquire) the proper licenses owning a working submachine gun? No one! But they have the option to sell to a non-government entity or person that is licensed (or to the government within the 2 year period, which I would say is obligated to purchase any firearm presented to it within that 2 years, though only if the seller legally owns the gun. Any illegally owned guns presented will simply be confiscated).

Banning anything that is currently legal is non-negotiable? WTF? That's like saying I won't start any more fires, but you have to let the ones I already set burn without interference.

The number and types of weapons you own is in the public interest. That doesn't mean anyone can simply ask a government agency to divulge what and how many you own, simply that the government must know, and know the intended uses. If it's for hunting, it must be registered as a hunting weapon. If it's for clays, then it must be registered as a sport weapon. If it's for shooting targets on a range, it must be registered. If it's for personal defense (if so, you must present proof of genuine need and have it approved), then it must be registered as such. If it's inoperable, it must be registered as inoperable. Some of those categories would allow for mixed-use firearms, in which case it must be registered for all its intended uses.

Civilians are already "licensed" to own firearms -- it's called the Second Amendment. And the Supreme Court has already specified two things about that license: it specifically covers self-defense, in or out of the home, and it specifically includes weapons with military purpose.

Licensing and registration are just tools for confiscation.

BTW -- yes, the firearms I own are indeed in the public's interest. As the Founding Fathers held, and the debate about the Second Amendment established, the great ideal is that every citizen by well-armed. The Second Amendment states one reason for that in the opening supportive clause: for the security of a free state. By being armed, I help provide for the security of a free state.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also there's quite a bit of difference between far right nutjobs (ironically - the biggest defenders of gun rights) and the people talking about gun control. Both on a moral and intellectual level.

ALSO, drawing a parallel between guns and gay rights is crass, to say the least.

Rights are rights. And of the two sets you mention, the right to keep and bear arms is more important, because without it there really are no rights, only privileges that can be taken away at a whim of government... which in truth these days means at the whim of the giant corporations.

It's hard to believe that people from the party of the president who has done the most to shred individual citizens' rights, i.e. the current occupant of the Oval Office, are so willing to throw away the very thing that could provide protection if a right-wing president acted as arbitrarily as the present president has.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually a recent look at the numbers involved in the buyback programs showed significant differences between the numbers of guns estimated to be in the country and the far lower number that was actually turned in. The government covered that discrepancy up by simply retroactively changing the original estimates downward and declaring victory. It is considerably likely that most of the gun owners in Australia still possess their firearms.

Yes. Citizens all over are wiser than their governments, and don't easily surrender their last resort against tyranny. I've seen figures that say that even in Germany there are likely twenty to forty million firearms, unknown to the government, in private possession. Given what that nation has gone through in the past, that's just sensible on the part of those private citizens.

I have to admit I'm baffled that a nation so determined there should never again be a Holocaust actually has laws of the very type that enabled it to happen the first time. Happily, Jews in the US are more in tune with reality, and determined to keep it from ever happening again by supporting our Second Amendment freedom -- I'm speaking, of course, of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Anyone truly opposed to another Holocaust should support their efforts to see to it that no minority is ever limited in its right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have to know that every one of those proposals are DOA at the federal level. It would take either a constitutional ammendment, or a dramatic reversal of the past few decades of SCOTUS rulings for any of those policies to pass constitutional muster. If something as simple as expanded background checks failed in Congress after 20 kids got killed, do you honestly believe a proposal to turn large swaths of this nation into felons will get anywhere close to serious debate? Realistic goals are what should be discussed, and honestly even liscencing without individual firearm registration is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

The biggest reason I won't compromise on bans of ANY kind is simply because I don't have to. People saw that the implementation and sunset of the AWB had virtually no impact on declining crime rates, so it's hard to get people fired up for something they know won't solve anything. Random shootings, while tragic, won't spur the same reaction on this country as it did in Australia. Every time some psycho kills a bunch of people everybody gets full of piss and vinegar, at least until the next bout of celebrity shenanigans makes everybody forget all about it. People have already forgotten about this 9 year old uzi story, Newtown is ancient history by now. Where is the political capital you need to force these policies upon the US?

The only way background checks would have helped in the case of a number of recent mass shootings is if somehow you could get criminals to do a background check on themselves before stealing the weapons they need.

But the whole issue is ironic: the very people trying to make background checks universal are the same who fought to keep anyone but licensed gun dealers from being able to make background checks. Gun owners have learned how to get around that; you just go with your prospective purchaser to a gun store, and the store does the check; if it goes through, the gun owner sells the firearm to the store, which immediately sells it to the actual buyer.

And meanwhile, Congress continues to abdicate its responsibility to provide for the discipline of the militia. A bill to do four things should sail through Congress with no opposition: (1) open the NICS to all citizens, so individual sellers could check on prospective buyers; (2) require secure storage of all firearms not "in use" (defining one to be instantly available in a home for home defense as "in use"); (3) acknowledge that the Second Amendment was extended to cover the states by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, given that individual ownership of firearms was a major element in getting that Amendment passed, and thus that every state must honor all other states' laws about carrying a firearm; and (4) authorize all public institutions to enter a flag in the NICS system if an individual is determined to be a danger to self and/or others. BTW, a violation of secure storage shouldn't be a crime, but a violation with fines and/or community service (biased toward the latter for those with low economic means).


BTW, not only the "assault weapons" ban was useless; there is no evident difference in crime between concealed carry and open carry areas.

 

[Kulindahr]

There gun lobby sees nothing reasonable about negotiation. They are beyond reach. They will not be changing their attitude any time soon.

Depends on what part of the "gun lobby" you mean. Some are very aware of Congress' Article I section 8 authority to provide for the discipline of the militia, which gives a wide opening to address actual issues without burdening the innocent.

But given that "shall not be infringed" is just as strong as "shall make no law", there isn't much room for compromise without betraying the Constitution.

 

[mightbe]

If you suffer the illusion that civilian gun owners could band together and defeat the U.S. military, thus overthrowing the government, you are quite literally insane. No civilian force could put down the U.S. armed forces. They're too large, too overfunded, too equipped and too well trained.

A bunch of gun nuts threatening to raise arms against tyranny is laughable to the U.S. government.

Make an appeal to self-defense. Fine. It only shows the hypocrisy of the "paranoia" you repeatedly bring up. But protecting your rights against the government? Ha! Don't even pretend that that's a valid argument. Individuals have so very little authority over the federal government. The climate in the US would have to be much more severe than it currently is to even warrant that claim. There is no significant threat to the U.S. government.

 

[mightbe]

Also, the clause structure of the second amendment is such that "[the formation of] A well-regulated militia [...] shall not be infringed.

The alternative understanding would be that there is a comma splice (preceded by parenthetical phrase and followed by what would've been a comma being used as an m-dash or semicolon). Comma slices in English in the late 1700s would've been serious no-no, given that we're talking about an official document. The rules of style would be adhered to to the utmost degree.

Effectively rendering it thus: The right to form a militia, for the protection of liberty, shall not be infringed; the right to keep and bear arms may be exercised.

I accept that you'll undoubtedly reject this parsing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Also, the clause structure of the second amendment is such that "[the formation of] A well-regulated militia [...] shall not be infringed.

The alternative understanding would be that there is a comma splice (preceded by parenthetical phrase and followed by what would've been a comma being used as an m-dash or semicolon). Comma slices in English in the late 1700s would've been serious no-no, given that we're talking about an official document. The rules of style would be adhered to to the utmost degree.

Effectively rendering it thus: The right to form a militia, for the protection of liberty, shall not be infringed; the right to keep and bear arms may be exercised.

I accept that you'll undoubtedly reject this parsing.

I reject it because it's grammatically incorrect, and contrary to what the people who wrote it and ratified it said it meant.

The opening clause is explanatory only; it gives one reason for protecting the right.

As those at the time expounded it, it means "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the natural and inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be touched in the slightest manner". "Shall not be infringed" is at least as strong as "shall make no law".

And a militia doesn't have to be "formed"; it exists -- it is, as the founders and framers said, "the whole body of the people". And the point of the amendment, as was explained by a friend of the man who wrote it, was "that the whole people be armed". So the militia exists, and it is everyone, and everyone should be armed.

It's too bad that they didn't pass the form that required everyone to be both armed and trained.

 

[opinterph]

… what the people who wrote it and ratified it said it meant.

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant a right to keep and bear arms, but rather acknowledges the keeping and bearing of arms as a pre-existing right when the Bill of Rights[SUP]*[/SUP] was ratified in 1791. The Second Amendment exists primarily to make clear that the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.

District of Columbia, et al., Petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller

On Writ of Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals for The District of Columbia Circuit
[June 26, 2008]
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.​

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

[SUP]*[/SUP]Articles 3 through 12 of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

 

[levenshulme31]

By that "reasoning", kids should never be allowed in swimming pools, rivers, or bathtubs.

Stupidity is its own reward. That death was not the fault of the Cricket.

Wow. Logic fail and callous dismissal of a child's preventable death - which, btw was the fault of the gun discharging in a circumstance which it should have withstood. The boy's parents aren't so keen on guns anymore.

Guns are made specifically to shoot bullets at high velocity at things in order to inflict potentially lethal damage (or simulation thereof with target shooting). Rivers, swimming pools and bathtubs are not. (neither are cars, high windows, lawnmowers or any of the myriad of other things which can cause accidental deaths.

If someone owns a gun it is statistically far more likely to injure or kill a family member either deliberately (murder or suicide) or accidentally than it is to prevent a crime being committed against a family member. 1 in 4 people will suffer from a mental illness during their lifetime. (I am currently off work with stress and depression - I am not suicidal but if I were, having a gun in the house is not going to protect me). You have stated in a previous discussion that you have medication for bi-polar disorder. That alone should be enough for you to forego your guns voluntarily lest you misuse them whilst in a disordered mindstate. It is as sensible a precaution as taking a driving licence off a pensioner with alzheimers - they may be entirely lucid for most of the day but that 5 minutes of uncertainty carries a clearly definable risk.

As for the 2nd Amendment it was written at a time when there was no National Guard or vast Army, Navy and Airforce to protect America and also when the most deadly weapon available was a musket. Do you really think they had paranoid weekend warriors with AK47s, .50 cal sniper rifles or mini-guns in mind? Or for 9 year old girls to shoot Uzis? Or for pathetic dicks to wander round shopping malls with AR15s and Magnum 44s because they feel threatened by a black President? The 2nd Amendment is out of date and should be done away with for the good of the nation. Sadly, the ever powerful gun lobby, NRA, Fox News and gun nuts wield way too much power so the innocent will continue to die in their thousands so overgrown children can keep their deadly toys.

 

[bankside]

The point is not even so much what the constitution says, but whether it says a smart thing or not. Given its effects, it does not.

 

[Stardreamer]

If you suffer the illusion that civilian gun owners could band together and defeat the U.S. military, thus overthrowing the government, you are quite literally insane. No civilian force could put down the U.S. armed forces. They're too large, too overfunded, too equipped and too well trained.

A bunch of gun nuts threatening to raise arms against tyranny is laughable to the U.S. government.

Make an appeal to self-defense. Fine. It only shows the hypocrisy of the "paranoia" you repeatedly bring up. But protecting your rights against the government? Ha! Don't even pretend that that's a valid argument. Individuals have so very little authority over the federal government. The climate in the US would have to be much more severe than it currently is to even warrant that claim. There is no significant threat to the U.S. government.

Actually they are not expected to be able to overthrow the US military just to be able to resist tyrannical actions by the government long enough to force a moral dilemma in said military. If their cause is just enough, a significant amount of the military forces will be sympathetic enough to cause the military to become unreliable and threaten full blown civil war, something no tyrannical government wants. If their cause is not just then they will be defeated plain and simple. In either case, the American people will know of their cause and judge it appropriately. The fates willing we should never have to come to a point where such an armed resistance would be necessary for it would mean that the entire system had failed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guns are made specifically to shoot bullets at high velocity at things in order to inflict potentially lethal damage (or simulation thereof with target shooting). Rivers, swimming pools and bathtubs are not. (neither are cars, high windows, lawnmowers or any of the myriad of other things which can cause accidental deaths.

Well, then we should most certainly ban swimming pools and bathtubs, because they're even worse than guns, which at least were meant to inflict injury!

BTW, you are so clueless about target shooting it's astounding.

If someone owns a gun it is statistically far more likely to injure or kill a family member either deliberately (murder or suicide) or accidentally than it is to prevent a crime being committed against a family member. 1 in 4 people will suffer from a mental illness during their lifetime. (I am currently off work with stress and depression - I am not suicidal but if I were, having a gun in the house is not going to protect me). You have stated in a previous discussion that you have medication for bi-polar disorder. That alone should be enough for you to forego your guns voluntarily lest you misuse them whilst in a disordered mindstate. It is as sensible a precaution as taking a driving licence off a pensioner with alzheimers - they may be entirely lucid for most of the day but that 5 minutes of uncertainty carries a clearly definable risk.

Figures from the CDC say that the incidence of firearms being used defensively per year is at a minimum of 40k. Assuming that the proportion of these involving family members is the same in both categories, you're claiming a minimum of -- using a conservative definition of "many" -- 80k accidental firearms injuries annually. Unfortunately, the same source puts that at less than an eighth of that.

If you've read previously about my biopolar, then you should also have read that my psych-doc once did an evaluation to decide if I should have firearms around, and decided I was safer than most people by far.

As for the 2nd Amendment it was written at a time when there was no National Guard or vast Army, Navy and Airforce to protect America and also when the most deadly weapon available was a musket. Do you really think they had paranoid weekend warriors with AK47s, .50 cal sniper rifles or mini-guns in mind? Or for 9 year old girls to shoot Uzis? Or for pathetic dicks to wander round shopping malls with AR15s and Magnum 44s because they feel threatened by a black President? The 2nd Amendment is out of date and should be done away with for the good of the nation. Sadly, the ever powerful gun lobby, NRA, Fox News and gun nuts wield way too much power so the innocent will continue to die in their thousands so overgrown children can keep their deadly toys.

Liberals are so fond of the word "militia", many of them embracing the racist version of that meant to keep blacks from having any rights, yet fail to even bother finding out what it means. The whole point of the militia was that it be stronger than the national government, stronger than any standing army. What the language of the Amendment means is the latest military-grade rifles -- anything else wouldn't pertain to the militia.

How liberals can watch even their own President working hard to turn this country into a police state, and throw out a very core element of liberalism, baffles me. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept, because it makes all men close to equal de facto and not merely de jure. It magnifies the individual and his rights over that of government -- which is another core liberal concept.

But today's liberal is no liberal, but a statist, believing that government is the font of rights and freedoms, a doctrine separated only by a feather's breadth from the open doctrine that all men are property. So why am I not surprised when you advocate a position which treats people after the fashion of livestock and not as sovereign individual thinking beings?!

 

[Kulindahr]

The point is not even so much what the constitution says, but whether it says a smart thing or not. Given its effects, it does not.

Given its effects? You mean the million or more defenses against crime that happen annually? or to use the CDC's figure, upwards of 40k?

Every day, millions upon millions of gun owners commit no crimes, and they do so at a better rate than the rest of the citizenry. That's the Amendment's effect right now.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually they are not expected to be able to overthrow the US military just to be able to resist tyrannical actions by the government long enough to force a moral dilemma in said military. If their cause is just enough, a significant amount of the military forces will be sympathetic enough to cause the military to become unreliable and threaten full blown civil war, something no tyrannical government wants. If their cause is not just then they will be defeated plain and simple. In either case, the American people will know of their cause and judge it appropriately. The fates willing we should never have to come to a point where such an armed resistance would be necessary for it would mean that the entire system had failed.

That's today's version of the concept, anyway.

But the militia is also intended to be sufficiently well-armed and trained that if an invader came, the government's forces wouldn't have to worry about trying to protect the population, but could devote themselves to the quick extermination of the invader, along with the militia.

 

[mightbe]

What makes you think I'm a liberal? Have I ever been resoundingly positive about liberalism (we're talking not what's labelled as liberalism in the US, we're talking liberalism as in what would be called libertarianism in the US, the kind of liberalism you subscribe to)?

You're using two different definitions to confuse. Liberalism (US) isn't terrible, liberalism (classical) only works in a limited sense, liberalism (Libertarianism the US/rest of world's definition) is quite dangerous; based on the notion that all rights are rights without limits, "shall not be infringed".

 

[Stardreamer]

No libertarian who understands what the concepts are about would say that rights are without limits. You are close to making the common mistake that many people make with libertarians and confusing them with anarchists.

 

[mightbe]

No, anarchists accept no greater rule of law than the individual. Libertarians accept the rule of law only so long as it does not interfere with their personal liberty.

The difference is that anarchists feel that no government may protect their liberty better than they do themselves.

Kuli is obviously a less stringent libertarian (I would practically term him a liberal with progressivist tendencies), but he is treating the gun issue as would a liberal, which is a less ideological version of libertarianism (Not liberal or libertarian in the US sense in any part of this paragraph).

In US discourse, those who identify with libertarianism (though not the Libertarian party itself usually) actually advocate for what the rest of the world calls liberalism. Liberalism in the US sense is widely acknowledged as a form of centrism elsewhere (rightist economics, moderate to left social). Those who qualify as libertarians in the classical sense (not US libertarians) are exceptionally dangerous because they do see any law or government as interfering with liberty in any way as tyrannical (the most ideological ones, anyway).

Again, anarchists see no law or government capable/worthy of defending personal liberty.

 

[Kulindahr]

No libertarian who understands what the concepts are about would say that rights are without limits. You are close to making the common mistake that many people make with libertarians and confusing them with anarchists.

Rights could only be without limits in "a universe of one", i.e. if there were only one sentient being.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

I take it then that some people in here believe that sports cars and fast bikes should be mechanically governed at 80mph since that's as fast as one called legally drive anywhere in this country? A Kawasaki ZX14 can break the law on any US interstate in 1st gear, ergo it has no use other than to break the law, ergo nobody has a reason to own one, ergo nobody should be able to own one.

That is how your logic sounds to me.