lhslep134;1747492 wrote:Your point, and now your response, necessarily assumes every person with a gun will continue to hold on to the gun until the police search them for it. If you continue to make your point premised on this assumption, then I'm wasting my time.

It doesn't, it needs to assume that a substantial number of people would do so. I'm very comfortable with that assumption. Very comfortable.

queencitybuckeye;1747498 wrote:It doesn't, it needs to assume that a substantial number of people would do so. I'm very comfortable with that assumption. Very comfortable.

Then I direct you to this which addresses those concerns without repealing the 4th Amendment

lhslep134;1747485 wrote:I think the obvious needs to be stated first, that no method exists to guarantee the elimination of guns. This probably holds true even if you completely shut down the manufacturing of new weapons.

That being said you start with a voluntary turn-in. Then for the assholes who still won't turn them in, you financially incentivize them to (pay them for the value of the gun?).

Then you invoke unconditional laws for gun possession/any activities that come with a gun with a strong enough punishment that would serve as de-motivation. Get caught shooting a can outside your house? 15 years. Brandish a gun in public? 15 years. Obviously this would be on top of the strong punishments for crimes involving guns and it would involve some sort of penalty enhancement. Assault? 2 years. Assault with a gun? 20 years

Absurdly penalizing someone is a more realistic and plausible solution than repealing the 4th Amendment.

And I've already addressed your 8th Amendment concerns. If people truly want guns eliminated, they should be OK with heightened sentencing involving guns (considering there are already laws doing this exact thing)

queencitybuckeye;1747479 wrote:My understanding is that a search of my property requires some reasonable level of proof of wrongdoing. In the scenario I gave for myself, that proof is absent. The only way I can think of for the government to search would be come to my door, "fishing" for guns.

That argument only works if you're not in possession of a gun. If the law changes and it now becomes illegal to own a gun and you try to hide the fact that you have a gun, you're now in violation of the law. I understand your point though, they can't initiate the search without reason to believe you have a gun, but couldn't they look and see if you've ever 1. registered a gun, 2. obtained a hunting license, things like that.

I agree banning guns solves nothing. i also agree trying to take guns away once they're banned is next to impossible.

Facts:
since australia banned firearms in 1996 (after port arthur) the percentage of homicides involving guns has been cut nearly in half (still not zero i know). The number of murders is roughly unchanged (though slightly lower)


The question we need to ask as Americans is this:

Do we want to end gun violence, or all violence?

To end all violence is a farce IMO. Never gonna happen. To end gun violence (or dramatically reduce it), we need to ban guns.

Is "absurdly penalizing" a legal term, or is it in effect saying "cruel and unusual" is OK if you call it something else?

j_crazy;1747504 wrote:That argument only works if you're not in possession of a gun. If the law changes and it now becomes illegal to own a gun and you try to hide the fact that you have a gun, you're now in violation of the law.

The 5th amendment would tend to say otherwise (cue lhs to say this is incorrect - hint, it isn't).

queencitybuckeye;1747505 wrote:The 5th amendment would tend to say otherwise (cue lhs to say this is incorrect - hint, it isn't).

You completely ignored the rest of his paragraph addressing your 4th amendment concerns. J_crazy addressed the probable cause issue, which then negates your 5th Amendment invocation.

But hey, why not just ignore the parts that go against your point?

I'm going to stop now though because now we're picking nits on a topic that's impossible to prove and impossible to implement. I think I made my point that it's plausible to accomplish the goal without repealing the 4th Amendment, although the 8th Amendment is potentially implicated.

This is just a shitty topic to be talking about. Shitty in the sense that it's a reflection of some major issues in our country

lhslep134;1747487 wrote:What is the point of your question? Better put, what are you trying to say? The same standard would apply to both neighbors.

My point is, if you're relying on tips from neighbor to eliminate guns, you're going to have a bad time.

queencitybuckeye;1747496 wrote:The real best way, of course, is to realize that in spite of television coverage and social media making it appear otherwise, gun violence has been going down steadily for decades. Can realistic things be done to increase the rate of decline? Possibly. Do we have a runaway problem? Hardly.

I don't disagree at all.

SnotBubbles;1747339 wrote:I'm no conspiracy theorist, but this doesn't look right.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I agree the video from the shooter's perspective looks fake. I think he must have missed with the first shots that were on camera because it just didn't look real.

superman;1747509 wrote:My point is, if you're relying on tips from neighbor to eliminate guns, you're going to have a bad time.

While I said I was done, you asked for clarification. I never implied that anonymous tips would be relied upon, I only used it as one example of implementation without violation of the 4th Amendment, because QCB said "the only way...".

j_crazy;1747504 wrote: Facts:
since australia banned firearms in 1996 (after port arthur) the percentage of homicides involving guns has been cut nearly in half (still not zero i know). The number of murders is roughly unchanged (though slightly lower)

I wonder how many of the murders after guns were banned were of people who could no longer protect themselves. I could give a shit if thugs are killing themselves off in the city.

I also won't be surprised if this gets more of a response than Sandy hook because the asshole made a video and everyone gets to see it over and over. Nothing makes an impression on people like actually seeing something terrible happen.

j_crazy;1747504 wrote:Facts:
since australia banned firearms in 1996 (after port arthur) the percentage of homicides involving guns has been cut nearly in half (still not zero i know). The number of murders is roughly unchanged (though slightly lower)

Doesn't that make banning guns completely pointless? That proves if people want to kill, they will. Who cares how they do it? At least with guns legal, people could possibly protect themselves.

Confiscating all guns is impossible, thus making all of the other arguments pointless.

FatHobbit;1747515 wrote:I wonder how many of the murders after guns were banned were of people who could no longer protect themselves. I could give a shit if thugs are killing themselves off in the city.

I also won't be surprised if this gets more of a response than Sandy hook because the asshole made a video and everyone gets to see it over and over. Nothing makes an impression on people like actually seeing something terrible happen.

This will soon be forgotten by the media. The shooter was a black gay man. Painting him as evil wouldn't fit the agenda.

lhslep134;1747501 wrote:And I've already addressed your 8th Amendment concerns. If people truly want guns eliminated, they should be OK with heightened sentencing involving guns (considering there are already laws doing this exact thing)

I wouldn't call that "addressed " ... I don't think the SCOTUS would agree that 15 years for shooting at a can in your backyard is a punishment fitting the "crime".
If the government would do all that was necessary to remove all guns... "Absurd punishments", searching homes, etc etc....then you have a government that has become what the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution to begin with.

j_crazy;1747434 wrote:i think your logic is quite backwards. banning guns makes perfect sense, it would be a collosal undertaking to achieve, and logistically it would be a nightmare. It worked in Australia, it worked in the UK, it would work here in time. I'm not saying it will be quick and we'll all like it. lets face facts that some people are straight up cunts and in the event they can't shoot and kill people, they'll stab them, or bomb them, or beat them with a hammer, but 1 **** with a knife is a lot less of a threat than 1 maniacal **** with an AK and hundreds of rounds of ammo.

Politically is the only way banning guns doesn't make sense.

Even if there were the political will - which I don't think there ever will be - I think it would one hell of an administrative undertaking.

I think QCB made a good point in the Poli forum...most CHL license holders commit less crime than people like Dylan Roof and this guy who just go and buy huns on a whim.

If the Pro-Gun activists will allow it and we promise not to ban AR-15's, I think if we started trying to regulate all gun purchases and owners like we regulate Concealed Carry I think we could make reasonable progress within the confines of the 2nd Amendment and Substantive Due Process.

If it takes a little bit of motivation to excercise 2nd amendment rights...maybe people like this guy will go buy booze when they are pissed off rather than go through getting a license?

I don't know.

HitsRus;1747524 wrote: I don't think the SCOTUS would agree that 15 years for shooting at a can in your backyard is a punishment fitting the "crime".

*Devil's advocate position*

Not necessarily. If the whole reason is to make the law prohibitively strong because of the danger guns pose, then the punishment WOULD fit the crime, because the crime is that severe. The whole point would be to treat gun ownership, in any form, like you treat other extremely dangerous weapons (bombs, rocket launchers, etc).

What if he would've walked up and hacked them with a machete? Do we still get the multiple statements and demonstrations we've already gotten about "gun control?"

^^^^This is a valid point, and illustrates the wrongheaded ideas we have to this kind of violence. In our desperation to "DO SOMETHING", we are going to blame the tool for the violence rather than addressing the cause and/or motivation for such violent actions. In almost all of the these mass murders, not only with guns, but other tools of destruction (Boston Marathon Bombers, OK City bombing) the perpetrators were looking for attention to themselves and or their "causes" or grievances. Perhaps the thing to do is to quit glorifying the violence, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes of being named and their causes identified. I would like to see a "Non Glorification of Violence, and Ethics in Public Media Act", where public media would not be allowed to identify violent lawbreakers by name nor to publicize whatever cause the violence was intended to bring attention to.

In other words, the yesterday's news could be reported as

[A TV reporter and a cameraman were killed brutally by an assailant as they did a morning news spot. Dead are reporter Allison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward from gunshot wounds. The shooter later killed himself......]

Now some may argue this restricts the Press's 1st amendment rights, but there exists already restrictions... eg. anti- defamation etc. ... and a small ethics requirement is news reporting is certainly better than having to completely repeal the 2nd amendment and trample or stretch the 4th and the 8th.

Very simply put, we don't give people who use violence a forum.

HitsRus;1747548 wrote:^^^^This is a valid point, and illustrates the wrongheaded ideas we have to this kind of violence. In our desperation to "DO SOMETHING", we are going to blame the tool for the violence rather than addressing the cause and/or motivation for such violent actions. In almost all of the these mass murders, not only with guns, but other tools of destruction (Boston Marathon Bombers, OK City bombing) the perpetrators were looking for attention to themselves and or their "causes" or grievances. Perhaps the thing to do is to quit glorifying the violence, and to deny the perpetrators of such crimes of being named and their causes identified. I would like to see a "Non Glorification of Violence, and Ethics in Public Media Act", where public media would not be allowed to identify violent lawbreakers by name nor to publicize whatever cause the violence was intended to bring attention to.

In other words, the yesterday's news could be reported as

[A TV reporter and a cameraman were killed brutally by an assailant as they did a morning news spot. Dead are reporter Allison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward from gunshot wounds. The shooter later killed himself......]

Now some may argue this restricts the Press's 1st amendment rights, but there exists already restrictions... eg. anti- defamation etc. ... and a small ethics requirement is news reporting is certainly better than having to completely repeal the 2nd amendment and trample or stretch the 4th and the 8th.

Very simply put, we don't give people who use violence a forum.

This would put the world's largest news corporations out of business.

I mean, check the ratings yesterday compared to your average day and you can see why they just eat this stuff up. The people doing the reporting probably hate it, but it's lining pockets.

In your scenario, the problem arises with the general fascination of these tragedies by the general public who generally have nothing better to do.

See this thread...and yes I've contributed to it

SnotBubbles;1747345 wrote:
For two, if you got hit with 3-4 hollow point bullets, you'd drop instantly...not run away.

I don't know. Maybe it's the conspiracy theorists rubbing off on me...but this is the first one I can honestly say after watching that I felt looked staged.

this is what happens when your perception of death comes from movies.

Let me understand this ...
Police State is that what we really want?
Punish those who legally, rightfully and responsibility own guns for the action of a minuscule of crazy people
Let today incompetent, bias Polititians alter the Constitution

Really this is the mentality of the future

taking the easy road by pin pointing the tool (guns) and all the innocent gun owners as your reason for violence is the same mentality as the crazy shooter choosing a victim for there target of excuses and reasoning.

Addressing the truth that liberal laws, liberal legal system, failure programs (education, mental health, welfare as examples), destruction of the family unit and faith ..the list could go on

We let patch work politic, policy and politician spew quick fix solution ....This is why we are where we as a society are now.

This would put the world's largest news corporations out of business.

I mean, check the ratings yesterday compared to your average day and you can see why they just eat this stuff up. The people doing the reporting probably hate it, but it's lining pockets.

You could still concentrate on the victims and the horror of the tragedy without giving the perpetrators, who are using the horror and the media and public's fascination with it, as a forum. This seems a much smaller price to pay then shredding the Constitution and penalizing and criminalizing 30 million gun owners because there are a half a dozen crazies out there. It wasn't all that long ago that the media had it's own ethical standards on news reporting and policed itself. The violence that we are seeing seems to mirror and to have escalated as those standards have disappeared. Coincidence?

Glory Days;1747553 wrote:this is what happens when your perception of death comes from movies.

NOPE DOT COM