Gun Control: Where do you draw the line? - General

Doing mental illness checks will only work if someone has been diagnosed as mentally it. It would work the same was as CRB checks stop paedophiles working in schools - it only works if they've been caught

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854457]That's completely baseless speculation but i'll just skip past that That's not the fault of the guns, though. That kind of logic is called a mental illness. Mental illnesses should be treated, that's what will prevent this kind of thing. Restricting access to legal guns only harms the legal gun owner. If someone wants to shoot up a school that badly, they can easily find illegal weapons.[/QUOTE] Restricting access to legal guns prevents mentally unstable from legally and easily obtaining these guns. If you think mental health is the crux of the problem here, you would be appalled at the ease of gun access through private sales, and even through some federal sales. [QUOTE=matt.ant;38854727]Doing mental illness checks will only work if someone has been diagnosed as mentally it. It would work the same was as CRB checks stop paedophiles working in schools - it only works if they've been caught[/QUOTE] Many of these recent mass murderers were clearly mentally unfit well before their shootings.

[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38854729]Restricting access to legal guns prevents mentally unstable from legally and easily obtaining these guns. If you think mental health is the crux of the problem here, you would be appalled at the ease of gun access through private sales, and even through some federal sales. Many of these recent mass murderers were clearly mentally unfit well before their shootings.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I addressed that point in a post a little later [QUOTE=Tacosheller;38854658]Then yes, let's make it more difficult for the mentally ill to get guns. Stricter background checks, force people to keep guns in safes. As long as you don't ban any firearm, just keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible, it's perfectly fine with me, and honestly it should be with any gun owner. The problem, at least in the case of the US, is that since we only have a two party system at this point, senators and house reps either want a total ban on guns or absolutely no regulation, which are both horrible ideas.[/QUOTE]

I think weapon banning shouldn't be illegal. I think you should be able to own everything. You ban weapons, good for you, the good people now don't own weapons, but criminals still find a way to get drugs, illegal animal parts, and I am sure they can find a way to get guns. tl:dr No, I believe they shouldn't ban weapons.

[QUOTE=froto;38855026]I think weapon banning shouldn't be illegal. I think you should be able to own everything. You ban weapons, good for you, the good people now don't own weapons, but criminals still find a way to get drugs, illegal animal parts, and I am sure they can find a way to get guns. tl:dr No, I believe they shouldn't ban weapons.[/QUOTE] But the criminals aren't the ones who go on school shootouts, do you think an autistic 20 year old would know where to buy illegal guns? Like I said earlier, selling a gun in Britain will get you a life sentence, so sellers aren't exactly easy to find like drug dealers who get a police caution at most if caught. So it works that way.

[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38854729] Many of these recent mass murderers were clearly mentally unfit well before their shootings.[/QUOTE] They did not express any public signs of mental illness though. Most mentally ill sociopaths could lie their way out on the checkup anyway. You can't just look at someone and go "yup, he's mentally ill" unless of course they are so fucked up they show physical signs. Many do not though, especially sociopaths. I'm not saying no to checkups but they're quite inefficient.

As a man who owns several guns, I believe in licensing, and frequent mental testing of gun owners. Make sure that there is little to no chance of a man going bonkers and shooting up a school.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;38855140]Like I said earlier, selling a gun in Britain will get you a life sentence, so sellers aren't exactly easy to find like drug dealers who get a police caution at most if caught. So it works that way.[/QUOTE] Britain is on the other end of the extremes' spectrum, though. With the huge amount of banned stuff, living in the UK is a gun enthusiast's worst nightmare.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;38854635]I don't know as I don't know what the rules are in the US for drink driving. Although if you're caught drink driving in the UK then you're licence is revoked. The difference is, how many drunk people got behind the wheel with the intention to kill compared to the number of people who used a gun on another person with the intention to kill[/QUOTE] Intention is really beside the point I was making. My point was that drunk driving caused just about the same number of deaths as firearms did, but that almost nobody ever calls for controlling alcohol even though alcohol is the root cause of drunk driving.

[QUOTE=Valnar;38855610]Intention is really beside the point I was making. My point was that drunk driving caused just about the same number of deaths as firearms did, but that almost nobody ever calls for controlling alcohol even though alcohol is the root cause of drunk driving.[/QUOTE] They're not the same though. One is poor judgment, the other is outright attacking people intentionally. You can't compare.

There does need to be stricter regulations on the storage of weapons at least as in the recent attack it was the mother's weapons that were used. It makes sense as well to keep them properly secured anyway.

[QUOTE=PyroCF;38856837]There does need to be stricter regulations on the storage of weapons at least as in the recent attack it was the mother's weapons that were used. It makes sense as well to keep them properly secured anyway.[/QUOTE] What do you propose? How can you regulate such a thing without violating the 4th Amendment?

[QUOTE=PyroCF;38856837]There does need to be stricter regulations on the storage of weapons at least as in the recent attack it was the mother's weapons that were used. It makes sense as well to keep them properly secured anyway.[/QUOTE] That would be infringing on our right as Americans, to keep and bear arms. Does shall not be infringed ring a bell? The problem is not law abiding gun owners like myself. We need improve our mental healthcare somehow.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;38857462]That would be infringing on our right as Americans, to keep and bear arms. Does shall not be infringed ring a bell? The problem is not law abiding gun owners like myself. We need improve our mental healthcare somehow.[/QUOTE] Requiring proper storage doesn't violate neither the second nor the fourth amendment rights. Infact in some states like Massachusetts you need proper storage anyway ([URL="http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm"]Source[/URL]).

[QUOTE=Hatley;38854188]I expect a few of the killers started off with that mentality.[/QUOTE] Most of the killers we've seen in the past few years bought their guns weeks or months before the attack, as part of their preparation. Very rarely does an enthusiast or hobbyist decide to take their tool and turn them indiscriminately against their fellow man. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=tomahawk2;38854729]Many of these recent mass murderers were clearly mentally unfit well before their shootings.[/QUOTE] Aurora theater shooter had a degree in psychology, and would know how to defeat any such test. The school shooter the other day murdered his own mother and stole her guns to commit his crime. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=PyroCF;38857524]Requiring proper storage doesn't violate neither the second nor the fourth amendment rights. Infact in some states like Massachusetts you need proper storage anyway ([URL="http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm"]Source[/URL]).[/QUOTE] But how do you verify that they are being properly stored? The government entity in charge of that would have to enter people's homes randomly and without advance notice to ensure they are being stored properly. That violates the 4th Amendment.

[QUOTE=Ridge;38857560] But how do you verify that they are being properly stored? The government entity in charge of that would have to enter people's homes randomly and without advance notice to ensure they are being stored properly. That violates the 4th Amendment.[/QUOTE] The 4th Amendment isn't being violated by setting out standards for the storage of firearms, not does it have to be violated in order to be enforced. Ever consider alternate scenarios of enforcement instead of just assuming the government is going to behave like tyrannical douchebags by kicking in your door without a search warrant?

[QUOTE=DemonElite;38857977]The 4th Amendment isn't being violated by setting out standards for the storage of firearms, not does it have to be violated in order to be enforced. Ever consider alternate scenarios of enforcement instead of just assuming the government is going to behave like tyrannical douchebags by kicking in your door without a search warrant?[/QUOTE] How does the government enforce storage laws if the person says, "no officer, you are not allowed into my house."?

"Safe Storage" laws are usually only enforced when someone rats someone else out for not following them, the problem becomes when laws like that are enacted, all it takes is hearsay for the cops to get a search warrant because they "believe that safe storage laws are being circumvented," and that's what can be invasive. It happens in Canada unfortunately far too often, and we have a right against unreasonable search as well, the thing is if safe storage is law, searching you because they heard you were violating it isn't unreasonable to them, and likely wouldn't be to a judge either.

[QUOTE=Valnar;38857999]How does the government enforce storage laws if the person says, "no officer, you are not allowed into my house."?[/QUOTE] You lose your licence to own a gun?

[QUOTE=Call Me Kiwi;38858030]You lose your licence to own a gun?[/QUOTE] You can't punish someone for refusing an unwarranted search. And DaCommie answered why warrants for those kinds of searches would be really invasive.

Assault weapons. Lol. Take a look at these two weapons: [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110409213321/world-war-2/images/8/8e/PPsh-41.jpg[/img] Even though this gun has a wooden stock and lacks a pistol grip, it's fully automatic and fires 7.62x25mm cartridges. Compare to this: [IMG]http://keagysports.com/original%20images/mp1522.jpg[/IMG] Which is all polymer and metal, all black, has a pistol grip, a rail system, and a telescopic stock. Aside from those aesthetics, it's a semi-auto .22 rimfire! (best pic i could find, pretend it doesn't have a suppressor.) The whole point of this is to prove that 'assault weapons' is a meaningless term thrown around by politicians to try and scare people who are ignorant of firearms. The guns in question are the PPSh-41 on top, and the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 on the bottom.

[QUOTE=download;38851799]Agreed. Life is boring and pointless if we can't get what we want[/QUOTE] Getting what you want isn't a right nor it should be. In the case of guns they are a privilege in our context, not a right. This means for us Australians, that if your privilege invades upon someones safety the government has a duty to protect that persons safety through adequate restrictions and (thankfully) adequate social safety nets, which they do. In the case of the US however, owning a weapon is a right so that kinda goes out the window.

I agree with the licensing requirements for gun owners. I also agree that while automatic assault rifles are cool, for the general public I still believe they should be restricted to law enforcement/military. My state currently has online carry and conceal certification...wtf? In our shooting team at school, we have a competition course that requires 48 rounds to be shot from 5, 10, and 15 yards with roughly 12 seconds for each load (6-12 bullets, over 1 or two magazines), right and left handed, supported and free stances. Not only do you have to hit the target with a great deal of accuracy, but also while under the pressure of time, and also while having to reload occasionally, AND with unfamiliar firing positions (opposite hand, kneeling, etc). I think EVERY weapon owner should be forced to take a proficiency course like this, even with shotguns, and be disallowed to purchase a weapon until sufficient efficiency with a weapon has been proven. If people are allowed to purchase a gun but can't hit the damn broadside of a barn then why the hell would a gun be helpful to them? On the ONE off chance they MIGHT be 3 feet away from their target? No thanks

you have a shooting team at school? that's fucking awesome

[QUOTE=Valnar;38858106]You can't punish someone for refusing an unwarranted search. And DaCommie answered why warrants for those kinds of searches would be really invasive.[/QUOTE] There are SO many exceptions to this though, especially when firearms come into play. If the officers suspect there is a firearm in the house (within reason of course), "potential harm to officers" overrides your warrantless search. This is similar to the "glovebox" search clause in warrantless vehicle searches. The rules and clauses of searches is COMPLETELY different based on the scenario, there's a reason why there are classes [I]just[/I] on reasonable searches and seizures -_- There are probably more exclusions and clauses to searches, than there are restrictions on it, because when the search and seizure amendment worked for 1776, it had to be revised for countless reasons to accommodate for today. Regardless, if you have a firearm and you aren't supposed to, it's illegal, and if you don't know how to use a firearm, I sure as hell hope you don't have one in your house. [QUOTE=Neat!;38859333]you have a shooting team at school? that's fucking awesome[/QUOTE] Yup.. 10 times national champions! (Criminal justice school that's why...but bullets, guns, and range time is paid for..WOOT!)

I think the whole "assault weapons" thing going around in the American media right now is fucking retarded, if you're going to ban guns to reduce crime, ban the ones criminals actually use, cheap pistols. No one does a drive-by with a fancy hunting rifle and you can't sure as hell can't hide an AR-15 under a hoodie.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;38855160]They did not express any public signs of mental illness though. Most mentally ill sociopaths could lie their way out on the checkup anyway. You can't just look at someone and go "yup, he's mentally ill" unless of course they are so fucked up they show physical signs. Many do not though, especially sociopaths. I'm not saying no to checkups but they're quite inefficient.[/QUOTE] You're mixing sociopaths and psychopaths up. Psychopaths are anti-social and stand out like a black man at a clan convention. Psycopaths are the very clinical, no apathy type of person who does exceptionally well at business, or, it they are murderers, they don't need a gun [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;38858788]Getting what you want isn't a right nor it should be. In the case of guns they are a privilege in our context, not a right. This means for us Australians, that if your privilege invades upon someones safety the government has a duty to protect that persons safety through adequate restrictions and (thankfully) adequate social safety nets, which they do. In the case of the US however, owning a weapon is a right so that kinda goes out the window.[/QUOTE] Me owning guns doesn't invade on someones safety, I'm not a criminal or a utter who will use my guns to kill someone. It's ridiculous you would punish me, never having had, nor will I commit a crime

[QUOTE=download;38860343]Me owning guns doesn't invade on someones safety, I'm not a criminal or a utter who will use my guns to kill someone. It's ridiculous you would punish me, never having had, nor will I commit a crime[/QUOTE] The ability to own a gun in Australia is not guaranteed by law so stop acting like you are being punished. You presumably own a gun and can use it while the current laws apply, state governments are giving you the freedom to own one while protecting the collective interests of a overwhelmingly gun-disinterested public.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38861805]The ability to own a gun in Australia is not guaranteed by law so stop acting like you are being punished. You presumably own a gun and can use it while the current laws apply, state governments are giving you the freedom to own one while protecting the collective interests of a overwhelmingly gun-disinterested public.[/QUOTE] And there's nothing wrong with a gun-disinterested public wanting to restrict firearms. The problem is that the public in Australia, like many countries, are gun-[I]uneducated[/I], not disinterested, and there's nothing more frustrating than having someone who has no idea what they're talking about say it's bad.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;38861987]And there's nothing wrong with a gun-disinterested public wanting to restrict firearms. The problem is that the public in Australia, like many countries, are gun-[I]uneducated[/I], not disinterested, and there's nothing more frustrating than having someone who has no idea what they're talking about say it's bad.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Australian public are uneducated. They probably had legitimate reasons for their laws.