Charleston Shooting

[Sethala]

For the rest, I would rather ADD to the Rights, not restrict or remove them. For some of you who favor heavily restricting the 2nd, the levels I am seeing here pretty much amount to a removal of the right with some of the requirements some people want just so someone can own a firearm. I might bend a little on the more reasonable ones, such as a background check for mental stability. If that is passed, there shouldn't be any further restrictions on someone buying and owning a gun. Maybe just a check up (at a low cost to do, nothing expensive) in a few years (5-10 years) to make sure the owner is still mentally competent.

I think the fundamental problem is that the main way to make the country safer, at least in my (and a few others in this thread) perspective, is to restrict ownership of firearms to make it more challenging for people like mass shooters to get their hands on them.  Ephiral has already shown multiple times that the constitutional rights can be modified, amended, or reinterpreted to allow for greater restriction on firearms.  I think the main disconnect is that you seem to think the 2nd amendment is infaliable and untouchable, while others are saying that while we shouldn't take any proposed changes lightly, it's important to keep the possibility of changing the rules in mind.

I have a problem with the first one. Not all firearms have serial numbers. Old ones have a good chance of not having a serial number. Adding one could very well destroy the value of the firearm (muskets, flintlocks or ones like those, before we started putting serial numbers on firearms for cataloging purposes), or are very worn because of the age of the gun. This ruling automatically makes those guns illegal, which will anger a LOT of collectors.
The second one I have no problem with as long as it is when the person discovers it is missing. Sometimes it might be some time before you discover the firearm is missing.

Older firearms like that are also less likely to be used in a mass shooting, or at least would be less deadly, so would you be agreeable to this if there were a grandfather clause for firearms manufactured before serial numbers were put on firearms, but otherwise remained the same?  (i.e. nothing would be required to add a serial number to an existing gun that never had one or to take away guns that were made without one before the law was in place.)  As for the second, I'm thinking it of more of a gun owner protection if, say, their gun was stolen then found at a crime scene, if they never reported it, it would look very suspicious.

Some firearms possibly, but all firearms have to be kept unloaded and in a secured location (assuming a gun safe that is always kept locked with the ammunition in a different place)? No. One reason people purchase a gun is for home protection. This means it should be relatively and easily accessible. People used to keep guns out in the open all the time, gun racks were a common thing yet the number of people who were shot accidentally wasn't large because people knew enough to leave the thing alone if it wasn't theirs. Children were taught to leave firearms alone and taught proper gun safety. My kids are taught proper gun safety.

I'm not sure if I would necessarily require the firearms and ammo to be locked up separately, but I don't really know much about firearm safety and security.  As for how it "used to be", that's not an argument I'm willing to just accept without some evidence.  It would take a lot for me to believe that not securing guns is acceptable after seeing how many shootings involve the shooter getting guns owned by people he knows that are kept unsecured.

The second, third and fourth parts, I am not in favor for. Licenses can be revoked or denied too easily. The 2nd is a Right that shouldn't be easily denied or restricted, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Just because it makes some people uncomfortable, yeah, that I can agree with.  This doesn't make people uncomfortable however, this makes them dead.  I don't think we should be so lenient about something that allows such a high body count.
 

Accepted with some reservations.

Would those reservations be the same ones you voiced earlier, or something different?

[Drake Valentine]

You do realize a lot of serial killers do not use firearms to kill, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims#Serial_killers_with_the_highest_known_victim_count

Removing firearms may deterrent some, but for those with other methods, than how would-would be victims defend themselves? I'm sure not everyone carries a firearm, but for those that do and have them also taken away, how would they defend themselves or others?

[LisztesFerenc]

You do realize a lot of serial killers do not use firearms to kill, right?

  There is a difference between a serial killers and a spree/mass killers.

[Drake Valentine]

  There is a difference between a serial killers and a spree/mass killers.

True, but essentially it is the same in the end. A serial killer goes about a daily routine of murder. A mass killer tries to take as many out at one point. How is any far different than the next? If the latter cannot get a message across from a get-go, what may stop them from going the other route of preying on others one by one?

I just do not approve fully of removal of guns as I have female friends who do carry for self-defense.

[LisztesFerenc]

True, but essentially it is the same in the end. A serial killer goes about a daily routine of murder. A mass killer tries to take as many out at one point. How is any far different than the next? If the latter cannot get a message across from a get-go, what may stop them from going the other route of preying on others one by one?

  You just described how they are different. Serial killers are far more organized and meticulous, spree killers are not. Do you really this shooting would have had the discipline to kill 9 people one at a time? He would have been caught with a far lower body count.

I just do not approve fully of removal of guns as I have female friends who do carry for self-defense.

  And what about the women killed by their gun owning partners? Or the fact that in Europe there is not a significantly higher assault rate, despite no guns for self defense.

Removing firearms may deterrent some, but for those with other methods, than how would-would be victims defend themselves? I'm sure not everyone carries a firearm, but for those that do and have them also taken away, how would they defend themselves or others?

  Yeah, if only we had some nations that were similar economically, politically and socially to the USA, but had much more heavily regulated fire arms, then we'd actually be able to know the answer to such questions. Alas, it seems we will never know the answer to such questions, just like we will never know the motivations of the shooter in this terrible crime.

[Drake Valentine]

  You just described how they are different. Serial killers are far more organized and meticulous, spree killers are not. Do you really this shooting would have had the discipline to kill 9 people one at a time? He would have been caught with a far lower body count.

Essentially that is a trick question. One can't tell fully of how the mind of another operates. The verdict can be taken similar to flipping a coin. The individual was clearly very organized and detailed on his manifesto that he had wrote. Which means that he did put some deep thought in everything prior to his actions. At that time he had access to a gun, so the simplest approach was a direct approach. A removal of the gun completely in a world deprive of such? Who is to say, he may of or may not done similar. Of course, if he would of attempted such, having a manifesto up on the web would of got him caught. Which in hindsight, I do not see how he didn't get caught before committing the crime. People knew of it and the manifesto he had, so why did they not notify anyone prior?

 

And what about the women killed by their gun owning partners? Or the fact that in Europe there is not a significantly higher assault rate, despite no guns for self defense.

So, one form of 'evil' is better than another? You can't win by keeping firearms. You can't win by removing them either. Regulating them would likely be best approach, but at the same time that system is flawed as it is still potentially possible to get hands on a firearm. I am not too familiar with Europe or other Worldly on goings, I do know some areas are stricter on crime such as Singapore and I don't even believe citizens are allowed firearms there, that is a strictly police ruled area. (Unless I am mistaken.) Places controlled more by martial law is plausible, but that too is another problem. As some gave examples that sometimes the police are never quick on the scene to respond and sometimes the crime is already good and done with. Plus, I am not too keen on the concept of being ruled over by martial law; but that is just me personally.

 

Yeah, if only we had some nations that were similar economically, politically and socially to the USA, but had much more heavily regulated fire arms, then we'd actually be able to know the answer to such questions. Alas, it seems we will never know the answer to such questions, just like we will never know the motivations of the shooter in this terrible crime.

Yep, but I doubt firearms are going anywhere soon. There are many Americans that would rather die than give up that right.

Well, the motivations were clear. I posted a link to a page in regards to his manifesto. Not sure if that site still had it up. The site that had it up originally was taken down by webpage, but the person that located it copy and pasted it on their news blog. Of course, like I stated, I haven't went back and check again on it, it could of been also taken down, In the long run gist of his motivations, from what was gathered on the manifesto, it was strictly a hate crime where he was under the impression Blacks were responsible for everything. Also there were other hateful references to other races beyond Whites, but some not preached hard about as the darker skin ones.

Edit: Yep, his manifesto is still up http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/ Again it is very hateful and racist.

[LisztesFerenc]

Essentially that is a trick question. One can't tell fully of how the mind of another operates. The verdict can be taken similar to flipping a coin. The individual was clearly very organized and detailed on his manifesto that he had wrote. Which means that he did put some deep thought in everything prior to his actions. At that time he had access to a gun, so the simplest approach was a direct approach. A removal of the gun completely in a world deprive of such? Who is to say, he may of or may not done similar. Of course, if he would of attempted such, having a manifesto up on the web would of got him caught. Which in hindsight, I do not see how he didn't get caught before committing the crime. People knew of it and the manifesto he had, so why did they not notify anyone prior?

  There is a very big difference between writing a manifesto and actually going through with it. There are a lot of unknowns, but you are grasping at straws if you are honestly trying to argue its a coin toss as to whether he had an equal chance of killing 9 people individually over the course of a few days.

So, one form of 'evil' is better than another?

  Yes, hence the concept of "a necessary evil". Also, how is banning fire arms an evil?

You can't win by keeping firearms. You can't win by removing them either. Regulating them would likely be best approach, but at the same time that system is flawed as it is still potentially possible to get hands on a firearm. I am not too familiar with Europe or other Worldly on goings, I do know some areas are stricter on crime such as Singapore and I don't even believe citizens are allowed firearms there, that is a strictly police ruled area. (Unless I am mistaken.) Places controlled more by martial law is plausible, but that too is another problem. As some gave examples that sometimes the police are never quick on the scene to respond and sometimes the crime is already good and done with. Plus, I am not too keen on the concept of being ruled over by martial law; but that is just me personally.

  Europe doesn't live under martial rule, and in Britain, despite patrol cops not carrying firearms, criminals haven't taken over the streets.

Yep, but I doubt firearms are going anywhere soon. There are many Americans that would rather die than give up that right.

  I know, that's rather the problem, or at least one of them. Obviously guns are not leaving, but getting people to understands that on paper a gun-less america would be better is an important step in tackling gun culture, which would save lives.

Well, the motivations were clear. I posted a link to a page in regards to his manifesto. Not sure if that site still had it up. The site that had it up originally was taken down by webpage, but the person that located it copy and pasted it on their news blog. Of course, like I stated, I haven't went back and check again on it, it could of been also taken down, In the long run gist of his motivations, from what was gathered on the manifesto, it was strictly a hate crime where he was under the impression Blacks were responsible for everything. Also there were other hateful references to other races beyond Whites, but some not preached hard about as the darker skin ones.

Edit: Yep, his manifesto is still up http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/ Again it is very hateful and racist.

  I know, I'm saying claiming we can never know what the US - the guns would be like when Europe, Australia and Japan exist is like (although not quite as bad) arguing we cannot know why this crime happened to begin with.

[Andol]

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. Now here in the Southern part of the US where I live, feral hogs are becoming a huge problem... and I mean not just in size, but numbers and aggressiveness. It is just not something that is discussed enough at this point, because literally you sometimes have to have a semi-automatic to automatic rifle to control a pack of these things in a safe manner without the risk of getting mauled. I know that may seem like over kill, but it isn't and going hunting for them with anything less is going to get you or your hunting dogs hurt. That would be my main worry at the loss of the right to own such a weapon, because it would put relatives of my own in danger who are on the front lines of helping to control this problem because of where they live. Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...   

[Caehlim]

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. Now here in the Southern part of the US where I live, feral hogs are becoming a huge problem

Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...

I don't think that seems like a silly thing at all. While I'm in favour of gun control, this sort of situation is one of the very few excellent reasons why people might need automatic firearms in ordinary civilian life. I think it's a factor that certainly has to be considered.

[Ephiral]

I know, I'm saying claiming we can never know what the US - the guns would be like when Europe, Australia and Japan exist is like (although not quite as bad) arguing we cannot know why this crime happened to begin with.

We also have Canada, which has a ton of US cultural influence and a significant number of tightly-regulated guns. The overwhelming majority are longarms, and basically nobody except police carry them on the street, let alone ready for use.

Hey, Drake, wanna take a guess what our violent-crime-per-capita rates look like compared to America's? In general or in specific?

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. [snip] That would be my main worry at the loss of the right to own such a weapon, because it would put relatives of my own in danger who are on the front lines of helping to control this problem because of where they live. Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...   

Conclusion does not follow from premise. Here in Canada, we have no such right... but you'd have little issue getting a weapon for that purpose. As I mentioned, the majority are longarms, licensed for just such a circumstance. Guns don't need to be a right to be accessible in justifiable circumstances.

[Sethala]

Drake, did you see my list of suggestions for a gun control law on the last page?  Would those kind of restrictions seem reasonable to you, or do you think something else would be necessary?

[Andol]

*Raises hand* "Conclusion does not follow from premise" I am curious what that means? XD Sorry to be off topic there?

When you use the term long arms I assuming that where speaking of the same style of weapons, just with different terms? I just asked, because I wasn't sure.

As for guns being a right I don't think that is something that should be messed with in order to bring about reasonable change. You have one side clamoring that their right will be taken away, when what really needs to happen is simply for the laws to become even more strict. Messing around with the Constitution like that gets a lot more backlash and makes it harder for people to get behind anything because they think it will mean a complete gun rights loss. At least that is the impression I get a lot, from people who would prefer a simply tightening of the laws because they themselves are sick of people who shouldn't have a gun having one.

Comparing Canada to the US though... well... I am not sure you can do that because the situations are a little different. I admit I am not properly equipped to answer this question why it feels like comparing apples to oranges but it just does.

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S   


Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

[Caehlim]

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S

Switzerland is a good example for the reasons you mention and more. Especially since I suspect it's pretty much what the authors of the constitutional amendment had in mind when they were writing about 'a well-organized militia'.

Swiss gun ownership is very high, however it is not unrestricted. They have to apply for permission to keep their weapon after military service ends and they aren't provided with ammunition. The sales of ammunition is closely tracked and registered, with the ammunition needing to be linked to a licensed gun.

I'd recommend having a look at this article, Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way for a good overview of the situation over there.

[Andol]

That sounds like a great system, though we also must remember how much bigger the US population is when compared to Switzerland... from what I read in the article it seems like it is something that works for them because they are small. If a similar thing could be done in the US it would be useful... but I don't think I could ever answer how. XD (Sorry for the shorter reply this time... :S)

[Sethala]

Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

Yeah, that was part of the mental and physical tests required to obtain (and keep) a firearms license.

[Ephiral]

*Raises hand* "Conclusion does not follow from premise" I am curious what that means? XD Sorry to be off topic there?

The premise you gave ("Gun ownership is no longer a right") does not logically lead to the conclusion you drew from it ("I will not be able to get a gun for dealing with dangerous animals.")

When you use the term long arms I assuming that where speaking of the same style of weapons, just with different terms? I just asked, because I wasn't sure.

Something with a long barrel, designed to be fired from the shoulder. Legal definition in my nation: A weapon with a barrel length of no less than 47 cm (18.5 inches) and a total fireable length of no less than 66 cm (26 inches). Basically small arms except for pistols and weapons modified to be concealable.

As for guns being a right I don't think that is something that should be messed with in order to bring about reasonable change. You have one side clamoring that their right will be taken away, when what really needs to happen is simply for the laws to become even more strict. Messing around with the Constitution like that gets a lot more backlash and makes it harder for people to get behind anything because they think it will mean a complete gun rights loss. At least that is the impression I get a lot, from people who would prefer a simply tightening of the laws because they themselves are sick of people who shouldn't have a gun having one.

But... there's only so much restriction you can do to a right and have it hold up in court. This is kinda the issue with making access to lethal force a right in the first place.

Comparing Canada to the US though... well... I am not sure you can do that because the situations are a little different. I admit I am not properly equipped to answer this question why it feels like comparing apples to oranges but it just does.

Culture strongly influenced by US culture, shared heritage, North America, high rate of gun ownership (seriously, we're #12 in the world, folks)... I'm afraid you'll have to be specific about what makes this a bad comparison.

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S

I would suggest that, among other factors including a very different culture, a significant contributor is the fact that firearms and ammunition are very tightly regulated there, about as far from a right as you can get. They might be prevalent, but actually using one is significantly harder than it is here in Canada.

Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

This is actually exactly the sort of thing that calling it a "right" interferes with. The Second Amendment has been used as a bludgeon to stop a lot of data collection in the US, which makes it terrifyingly easy to get around any and all restrictions that are in place. Private sales aren't tracked at all, after all.