3D Printed Gun

[McAvoy]

Inspection of a storage arrangements would involve someone going a gun owners house to inspect it. In the US we take our vehicles to an authorized inspection place. It would defeat the purpose of storage if you had to take the whole thing to an inspection station.

So in other words, mandated storage is out of the question. There can be stricter gun laws though. I would have to see the full extent of the current gun laws to see what can be added or increased. Gun laws are different state to state. NJ we have fairly strict laws. In Texas they probably give you a gun to with every purchase of beer or something.

[Deepcrush]

Really?

Yes really, that something is not an everyday item of risk doesn't remove it from risk. Toaster and stoves kill more people then rifles every year because of gas leaks or fires. That something isn't normally a risk doesn't remove risk, just removes odds in favor of that risk.

Fixed.

Not fixed unless you'd care to show where gun bans have in fact ever saved lives. There hasn't been a single successful gun ban that has resulted in lower crime. However limited and regulated use of vehicles has cut the death tolls.

So what? Overall, heart disease is the leading cause of death. Does that mean that all research into all other fatal illnesses should be abandoned?

Care to show where anyone said anything about giving up on illnesses? Anywhere at all in this thread? The whole point is to focus on the leading cause of death, not abandon it.

Then why is the US murder rate four times that of the UK, despite the overall and violent crime rates being worse?

Well first off England's population is 50m vs the 315m not counting the estimated 20-30m illegals in country. The vast majority of our crime remains located in areas that are registered as anti-defense areas. Chicago being one, New York with its now rising crime rates being another. Another issue is that the English population seems content with being victims. Most Americans are simply unwilling subject themselves to that kind of life style. Lastly comes defensive measures. Its important to remember the size of the two nations in comparison, as well as the terrain involved. While England is small with a mostly passive population, it doesn't have the need for a large professional police force. So a force of limited ability is fine when people are simply willing to accept whatever is done to them and continue on. The United States is massive, with a huge mix of populations and terrains. Conflicts are just simply impossible to keep from happening at all times, some will get through. There is no effective way to maintain the defense of the average person simply by government action alone. So in exchange people need the ability to defend themselves, no different then having fire extinguishers or first aid kits. The better prepared the average population of an area, the lower the loss of life. This isn't just in guns, but in car care and home care as well. The reason guns come up is that our most common exchange is with England, who is very pro-crime, and our urban population which is very pro-entitlement.

Lastly its important to remember that anti-defense laws by their own nature will increase crime. Criminals don't obey laws, clearly, so areas like those will attract large criminal populations. Which in turn normally end up killing each other which drives up the murder rate. Our business in Baltimore was cut drastically when someone finally noticed that nearly 80% of the murders were gang related and localized in a single area. The reverse came in New York when laws were passed trying to ban self defense and so security (both government and private) were hired in too replace the weakened population.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes really, that something is not an everyday item of risk doesn't remove it from risk. Toaster and stoves kill more people then rifles every year because of gas leaks or fires. That something isn't normally a risk doesn't remove risk, just removes odds in favor of that risk.

Fair enough. I still say that with competent storage those incidents would never have happened.

Not fixed unless you'd care to show where gun bans have in fact ever saved lives. There hasn't been a single successful gun ban that has resulted in lower crime.

I've never argued that banning firearms would lower crime. I've argued that reducing the number of implements available that allow people to kill each other more easily and at longer range than knives and bats is a good thing.

Care to show where anyone said anything about giving up on illnesses?

Every part of this thread where people objected to regulating or restricting private ownership of firearms. The illness is the US obsession with weapons.

Well first off England's population is 50m vs the 315m

Rate, stupid.

The United States is massive, with a huge mix of populations and terrains. Conflicts are just simply impossible to keep from happening at all times, some will get through.

So your cops aren't perfect. No-one is. This is not an argument in favour of vigilante justice, but to keep working on LE.

[Captain Seafort]

Inspection of a storage arrangements would involve someone going a gun owners house to inspect it.

Correct

So in other words, mandated storage is out of the question.

Why? I'm not suggesting that the cops do a full inspection every other week, but that there be a full assessment of storage arrangements, plus background check and mental health assessment of everyone in the household when a firearms license is granted, plus reviews (ideally annually, but resources may require longer cycles) to ensure that people aren't getting sloppy.

[McAvoy]

Inspection of a storage arrangements would involve someone going a gun owners house to inspect it.

Correct

So in other words, mandated storage is out of the question.

Why? I'm not suggesting that the cops do a full inspection every other week, but that there be a full assessment of storage arrangements, plus background check and mental health assessment of everyone in the household when a firearms license is granted, plus reviews (ideally annually, but resources may require longer cycles) to ensure that people aren't getting sloppy.

Just won't happen. Too many people and too few resources even for long cycles. Not to mention people would not like cops or whoever going into their home for any reason.

[Captain Seafort]

Just won't happen. Too many people and too few resources even for long cycles.

We do it. Albeit with a smaller population and far fewer firearms, but we do it. At the bare minimum there should be the initial checks and a review after a year.

Not to mention people would not like cops or whoever going into their home for any reason.

They can fucking lump it - anyone who thinks they deserve the privilege of private possession of firearms can, at the bare minimum, demonstrate that they're competent to use and store them. If not, then they're obviously too paranoid to be safe with them.

[McAvoy]

You do realize we are talking about bunch of folks who could easily make such things into standoffs.

Keep in mind unless you have been in trouble with the law, hardly anyone from the government goes into a house if ever. This would be a very new concept for some.

[Captain Seafort]

You do realize we are talking about bunch of folks who could easily make such things into standoffs.

If someone's such a paranoid fuckwit that they think a basic safety inspection is worth a firefight over, do you think it's a good idea for them to possess firearms?

Keep in mind unless you have been in trouble with the law, hardly anyone from the government goes into a house if ever. This would be a very new concept for some.

A few centuries ago the concept of republicanism would have baffled most people, including in certain colonies. A century ago the idea of heavier-than-air flight was a very new concept to most people. Half a century ago the idea of man setting foot on the moon was science fiction. By those standards the idea of a cop doing a safety inspection is pretty trivial.

[Tsukiyumi]

Let's put it this way: Seafort has about as much knowledge of US Constitutional rights as I do of British Parliamentary procedure, i.e. none. The proposal in question would violate the 2nd and 4th amendments at the very least. Keep in mind that in the UK, there are hundreds of thousands of cameras around the country, which have no bearing on crime rates, and only serve to spy on their own populace - and they don't have a problem with it. It's a distinct cultural divergence, and one that can't really just be discussed away.

Also, "not easy" and "standoff situation" are massive understatements. Trying to confiscate guns on a national level would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. One that would tear this country to the ground; no one is willing to risk that, at least not any sane people.

[Captain Seafort]

Let's put it this way: Seafort has about as much knowledge of US Constitutional rights as I do of British Parliamentary procedure, i.e. none.

Laws can change, even constitutional amendments. Unless a black Usian is still worth a third of a white, or owning booze is illegal.

Trying to confiscate guns on a national level would almost certainly result in a second Civil War.

For once I'm not talking about a mass confiscation - I'm talking about regulation, and inspection of storage arrangements.

[stitch626]

Maybe they should just ban bullets. Nothing in the Constitution about ammo for said arms.

/end bored troll moment.

I think even attempting to ban what is currently legal is not an option due to the way our (rather ineffective at times) government functions (or fails to function, whichever). At this point, any legislation on anything would be a miracle...

[Tsukiyumi]

Laws can change, even constitutional amendments.

No one would survive the political fallout of even proposing to change the core amendments. The first ten are practically untouchable.

...Usian...

Okay, while I get your point on that, your choice sucks. How about "Statesider" or just "fatasses"?

For once I'm not talking about a mass confiscation - I'm talking about regulation, and inspection of storage arrangements.

Right, but said inspection would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lately, they seem quite willing to trample that, and others, but the number of lethal incidents would skyrocket well beyond any organization's ability to handle, both in terms of personnel and PR.

What would be considerably more helpful is a national database of mental illness; one that is properly enforced and monitored to prevent mentally ill folks from buying guns in the first place. The main problem with that idea, and every other one proposed is this little financial issue we're experiencing at the moment. We can't even enforce the rules on the books properly; new laws would be less than useless.

Maybe they should just ban bullets. Nothing in the Constitution about ammo for said arms.

I think the idea of "bearing arms" implies that they would have ammo.

[Captain Seafort]

Maybe they should just ban bullets. Nothing in the Constitution about ammo for said arms.

Technically anything short of mandatory amputation of all limbs should be legal. The second amendment never specifies that the "arms" in question are weapons.

I think even attempting to ban what is currently legal is not an option

It depends on how you define that. I agree that an outright ban of all firearms is unenforceable, short of a Base Delta Zero from the Rio Grande to the St Lawrence, but banning certain categories (high-capacity magazines, AP ammunition, etc) shouldn't be a problem.

[Tsukiyumi]

Why does AP ammo keep coming up (in gun discussions in general)? You can't buy that without a Class III license.

Basically, the 2nd is there to give the government pause at least when it tries to get oppressive and uppity. That's why people are against a registry, mag limits, "assault weapon" bans, and the like. If the cops and private security forces would agree to downgrade with the rest of us civilians (which they are also), maybe (and I stress maybe) those things would gain traction.

Though, as I've already pointed out, I can reload a magazine in 2/10ths of a second; enough to screw me over in a home invasion, but not even relevant in a mass shooting situation. Mag limits are asinine. So is banning weapons based on cosmetic features; it has no bearing on public safety.

[Captain Seafort]

How about "Statesider" or just "fatasses"?

*shrugs* I grabbed the most common US-specific term I've seen.

Right, but said inspection would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I don't see how you can see inspections to ensure safe storage of weapons as "unreasonable". Does the US have regular mandatory inspections of motor vehicles (which seem to me to count as "effects") to ensure their safety. If so, what's the difference?

the number of lethal incidents would skyrocket well beyond any organization's ability to handle

Again, if someone's such a paranoid fuckwit that they think a basic safety inspection is worth a firefight over, do you think it's a good idea for them to possess firearms?

What would be considerably more helpful is a national database of mental illness; one that is properly enforced and monitored to prevent mentally ill folks from buying guns in the first place.

Absolutely. Proper background and mental health checks (of everyone in the household, not just the license-holder) of all owners are at least as important as checking storage arrangements.