Hey man, not sure if the stats you mentioned is correct or not, but I will assume you have done your research and they are correct. but you have to agree that gun violence/mass shooting is probably a lot easier to avoid/control compared to earthquakes or lightning right? for me thats the problem. Something that is so easy (compared to other disasters) to control is being accepted as something normal. Houses have to be building according to regulations that will ensure it can withstand a certain magnitude of earthquake, despite the low odds of dying in an earthquake. average citizens are literally paying tens of thousands of dollars extras for this feature. why can't we do the same for guns? at least attempt to stop these preventable deaths instead of dismissing it as low chance events.
Actually, it is a lot easier to avoid lightning strikes than school shootings. Go inside when there is a thunderstorm and you will avoid lightning strikes. Get under a table or go outside during an earthquake and you will probably be fine there too. The fact that school shootings are only a danger on par with these extremely rare events even though they are harder to prepare against just underscores how incredibly unlikely dying in a school shooting is. You can do whatever you want to prepare for it or attempt to stop it. Go ahead. No one is stopping you from investing in better door locks, bulletproof backpacks, teaching your kids run/hide/fight or whatever you want to do. I just don't want you to infringe on people's rights to address something that doesn't really need to be addressed, because it is very, very unlikely to happen to you anyway.
As an architect who has worked on school projects we are already addressing school shooting through building designs just as we address weather and earthquakes. So even though the chances of dying by those are rare they are still being addressed. As we’ve discussed before though rights dont exist without responsibility and rights are restricted and can be revoked when abused. In this case would you agree that a firearm owner who doesn’t properly secure their firearms is not responsible? A firearm owner that allows their firearms to be used in school shootings because if negligence should be held responsible? And that people with a history of mental illness and violence should not be considered responsible firearm owners?
Great. As I said, I and other second amendment advocates have no issue with that. It is when you get into infringing on people's rights that it becomes a problem. It depends on what you mean by "properly secure". If a person lives alone and keeps a gun at home, that is properly secured to me, even if not in a safe or with a trigger lock. If a person leaves a gun on a public bathroom sink, that is not properly secured. I suppose it would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Yes, we already have the ability to sue for negligence in every state. That requires no new laws and is not limited to firearms. If you negligently drive your car or operate your crane or cook your food and injure or kill someone, you can be sued. I don't agree that a history of mental illness and violence (or one or the other) automatically prevents someone from being a responsible firearm owner. We already have laws that prevent felons and certain misdemeanants from owning firearms. We already have laws that prevent people with certain diagnoses from owning guns legally. Some of those are possibly unconstitutional, others are probably fine. If someone has depression or anorexia (both mental illnesses) or has defended themselves (violence) I think they can still be a responsible gun owner.
Aka federal background checks. Which not all states abide by for private sales hence "gun show loop hole" where individual firearm owners sell their excess supply because their wife thinks they have too many pieces and need some grocery money. These states only require licensed dealers to do background checks.
It is still illegal to sell a gun to a felon and it is still illegal to possess a gun as a felon. Most of the felons with guns we see are not getting them through lawful transactions, they are either getting them through their gang and/or getting an 80% gun online and making it themselves.
How is it illegal to sell a gun to a felon as a private citizen with no license to sell in states that don't require background checks for private sales? How can you make the private seller legally responsible if he or she doesn't even have to do a basic background check. Has there ever been a private seller in the states that don't require background checks for private sales there have legal repercussions for selling to a felon? How can a private seller know they are selling to a felon without a background check?
Is there a limit, say a trillion $$ a year ? at which that gun nuts of the Second Amendment Cult would say it is just not worth it? Or should we hire hundreds of thousands of more security guards,millions ?, redo all school architecture, mall architecture, etc. build new rehab hospitals, hire hundreds of thousands of grief therapists, dIsability payments, millions of background paperwork, tens of thousands ? of clerks to monitor etc. etc. etc.
Why though? Doesn't that go against the 2nd amendment? If we don't want felons to possess or own guns shouldn't we pass a constitutional amendment?
No more than taking away their right to vote or putting them in prison violates the 14th Amendment. There are consequences to breaking the law.
So you're agreeing that the Executive branch, Congress, and the States have the right to regulate the constitution as they see fit?
No, I am saying that when the founders wrote the Constitution, they understood criminal prosecution and that breaking the law resulted in giving up the rights that law abiding citizens were entitled to exercise. In fact, it is written right in the 5th Amendment. You cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Losing your right to bear arms is a deprivation of liberty. It requires due process of law, to-wit: a trial by jury resulting in a conviction of a felony or certain misdemeanor crimes. Congress cannot simply pass a law taking away the right to bear arms, nor can the President do it by executive order. The states are bound by the 14th Amendment to provide at least the same protections as the Federal Constitution (though they can allow MORE freedom than is required by the US Constitution). I think we probably go too far in gun laws already, and I expect further erosion as we saw with NYSRPA v. Bruen. I don't expect we will see a lot more restrictive gun control approved by the current court.
Tell that to the former slaves... anyways I know it's all lawyer's prattle to you but most people don't think in the same manner thank God.
Really not news as there are more than one a day. The Second Amendment Cultists want it to be boring and just the way it is. Keep the discussion about the video game playing (sort of receding) social media habits of the killers, the intricacies of background check laws, lack of mental health which they don't want to pay for generally, any sort of racial or gender angle to the killing etc. etc.
