No Second Amendment in the UK

[VikingsGuy]

If the UK has had 3 mass shootings in 60yrs, you can't simple say "draconian" gun laws don't work at preventing mass shootings. Unless they have figured out the mental health issue. Can't say for sure but my money is on 'no'.

As to the question on the form, hard to say the existence of the question is counterproductive. Probably just pointless. There are many "sales" that don't use the form, and people lie on that question and there is no cross referencing with health data so if the applicant says 'no' the only cross-check is through legal records. The process has more holes than swiss cheese.

The basis for my remarks is that according to the FBI 83 people died in “mass shootings” in 2018, but 48,000+ died of suicide (all methods) and 12 million Americans suffered from debilitating mental illness. I think we need to set aside worries for the 83 and tackle the 12 million.

 

[Bigjay73]

Great conversation, but regarding suicide, I believe it's a moot point. Anyone that has fallen that deeply will just turn to another form of performing their final act unfortunately. If life has become unbearably painful, you dont really care how the pain ends.

 

[Little Canyon Creek]

Great conversation, but regarding suicide, I believe it's a moot point. Anyone that has fallen that deeply will just turn to another form of performing their final act unfortunately. If life has become unbearably painful, you dont really care how the pain ends.

This isn't true. I don't have the data on hand, but I remember it clearly shows that people who survive suicide attempts are far less likely to attempt suicide again. So decreasing the success rate of suicides can have a big impact, and a gun is going to have a higher success rate than other means.

 

[Bigjay73]

This isn't true. I don't have the data on hand, but I remember it clearly shows that people who survive suicide attempts are far less likely to attempt suicide again. So decreasing the success rate of suicides can have a big impact, and a gun is going to have a higher success rate than other means.

Yes, and then they are even more depressed because they couldn't even get suicide right, but at least they're alive to deal with it. Suicide and mental health are near and dear to me, I see your point, and even gunshot victims survive, which can almost be more horrendous than if they had died. Fortunately, or however you want to look at it, many survive because it was more of a cry for help than actually wanting to die, someone who uses a gun has no doubt that they want to die, and that can skew the stats. And i am not at all arguing, this should never be an argument, it should always be a civil intelligent discussion, and it should happen far more often

 

[SAJ-99]

The basis for my remarks is that according to the FBI 83 people died in “mass shootings” in 2018, but 48,000+ died of suicide (all methods) and 12 million Americans suffered from debilitating mental illness. I think we need to set aside worries for the 83 and tackle the 12 million.

Agree it is a problem, don't agree you can separate the two (for this discussion), especially because of the question on the ATF form. And 83 is way low. Must be a very conservative definition. The problem occurs when a suicide becomes a murder/suicide. It is sad for a person to be in such a bad place they consider suicide at all, it is worse when they drag someone else into the mess with them, and certainly a violation of rights. I agree that it would benefit society far more to address mental health before talking about gun laws, but that isn't going to happen.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agree it is a problem, don't agree you can separate the two (for this discussion), especially because of the question on the ATF form. And 83 is way low. Must be a very conservative definition. The problem occurs when a suicide becomes a murder/suicide. It is sad for a person to be in such a bad place they consider suicide at all, it is worse when they drag someone else into the mess with them, and certainly a violation of rights. I agree that it would benefit society far more to address mental health before talking about gun laws, but that isn't going to happen.

FBI doesn’t include gang/drug violence in mass shootings. WashPost and Bloomberg do. That’s where they get the “mass shooting every day in America” messaging from.

 

[Shangobango]

And the further rebuttal is that every single constitutional right is subject to regulation and oversight to some extent, so the question is, "is this one such regulation allowable or not?"

The point was simply that comparing the requirement to buy car insurance and a mandate that you must buy a safe for your firearms is not apples to apples.

Once again, there is an enumerated right involving firearm ownership. No such thing exists for car ownership.

 

[FI460]

Once again, there is an enumerated right involving firearm ownership. No such thing exists for car ownership.

But it has been determined in the courts that that right is not absolute. The decision in our best interpretation for an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller) specifically said so.

That's what Vikingsguy is getting at.

 

[Shangobango]

But it has been determined in the courts that that right is not absolute. The decision in our best interpretation for an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller) specifically said so.

That's what Vikingsguy is getting at.

Yes I understand. I was not disputing that.

 

[SAJ-99]

The point was simply that comparing the requirement to buy car insurance and a mandate that you must buy a safe for your firearms is not apples to apples.

Once again, there is an enumerated right involving firearm ownership. No such thing exists for car ownership.

So if they check to see if it is locked up and it isn't they just fine you $500, or whatever.? I think the point is the "right" to ownership can come with limitations.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So if they check to see if it is locked up and it isn't they just fine you $500, or whatever.? I think the point is the "right" to ownership can come with limitations.

Can they fine you $500 for standing on the corner and yelling Trump is a moron? The question is not how can they punish you for non-compliance, it is can the govt. require that particular compliance in the first place. I think in the case of inexpensive and readily available gun safes/lockboxes the likely SCOTUS answer is yes they can. But not because it is merely a fine, but because the requirement (a) is narrowly tailored, serves a compelling state interest and is done in the least restrictive manner possible OR (b) furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest OR (c) is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

And therein lies the rub - SCOTUS has not yet clearly told us what of these 3 standards to apply. Every single constitutional right including the 1A, 2A and 4A can be infringed if the chosen one of these 3 tests is passed. There is NO absolute constitutional right. There never has been, there never will be. Disagreeing about which of the 3 standards to apply and then disagreeing about how the chosen standard in fact is applied in that circumstance allows for lots of reasonable (and unreasonable) disagreement. But it is simply not a rational or educated response in the USA under our beloved constitution to say, "what part of infringed don't you understand".

(@SAJ-99 - not implying you are saying otherwise, but it seems to come up every time this topic is discussed, so just getting ahead of the curve)

 

[MO Betta]

The safe issue is more feel-good than anything. Most "safes" people own can be defeated with pry bars or angle grinders. Once someone breaks into your home, they have already defeated a protective measure and at that point no responsibility should be put upon the owner.

 

[FI460]

The safe issue is more feel-good than anything. Most "safes" people own can be defeated with pry bars or angle grinders. Once someone breaks into your home, they have already defeated a protective measure and at that point no responsibility should be put upon the owner.

Not likely to be defeated by a child making a mistake though.

 

[SAJ-99]

Can they fine you $500 for standing on the corner and yelling Trump is a moron? The question is not how can they punish you for non-compliance, it is can the govt. require that particular compliance in the first place. I think in the case of inexpensive and readily available gun safes/lockboxes the likely SCOTUS answer is yes they can. But not because it is merely a fine, but because the requirement (a) is narrowly tailored, serves a compelling state interest and is done in the least restrictive manner possible OR (b) furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest OR (c) is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. And therein lies the rub - SCOTUS has not yet clearly told us what of these 3 standards to apply.

There you go getting all lawyerly on us. When I look at it, the Govt is not prohibiting your ownership of a firearm or making it unnecessarily hard to own one. Maybe the amount (which I just made up, of course) is different. At the same time, when they knock on the door to check you could just tell the sheriff to go pound sand and there is not much he/she could do. But if someone breaks in and the the guns are taken because they weren't in a safe, levy the fine. Compliance in any issue is a matter of incentives. Monetary incentives seem to be particularly useful. Welcome to capitalism.

 

[rwc101]

Great conversation, but regarding suicide, I believe it's a moot point. Anyone that has fallen that deeply will just turn to another form of performing their final act unfortunately. If life has become unbearably painful, you dont really care how the pain ends.

I disagree. I did not have any weapons with me when I was at my most depressed since I was in grad student housing where they weren't allowed. The frustration of trying to figure out the logistics of acquiring appropriate strength and diameter rope, what length I needed so I didn't rip my head clean off (for the sake of the poor bastard that would find me/deal with my corpse), how to tie the noose, and whether the column in my kitchen was sturdy enough to hold my weight after I jumped off the balcony probably saved my life as much as not having access to an easy way to put a 20 gauge slug through my chin. As much as I love my firearms, I am glad I did not have access to them at that time and they were safeguarded by my parents rather than the police.

 

[SAJ-99]

The safe issue is more feel-good than anything. Most "safes" people own can be defeated with pry bars or angle grinders. Once someone breaks into your home, they have already defeated a protective measure and at that point no responsibility should be put upon the owner.

Not sure where you live in, but a lot of people in my MT neighborhood don't lock anything and get bent out of shape when criminals take stuff out of their unlocked car or garage. You can take my guns but have to go through an alarm system and break open the safe. this may shock some, but most criminals aren't too smart or patient.

 

[MO Betta]

Not likely to be defeated by a child making a mistake though.

Kids find all sorts of ways to gain access to things they're repeatedly told not to. If you have kids, should you lock up weapons? Absolutely. I don't have any and still lock them up. But they'll watch the numbers you punch in on a keypad, or where you stow a key. A tumbler will be more difficult generally, but if you accidentally leave the safe ajar they'll investigate. People are curious and determined, even the little ones.

 

[Bigjay73]

I disagree. I did not have any weapons with me when I was at my most depressed since I was in grad student housing where they weren't allowed. The frustration of trying to figure out the logistics of acquiring appropriate strength and diameter rope, what length I needed so I didn't rip my head clean off (for the sake of the poor bastard that would find me/deal with my corpse), how to tie the noose, and whether the column in my kitchen was sturdy enough to hold my weight after I jumped off the balcony probably saved my life as much as not having access to an easy way to put a 20 gauge slug through my chin. As much as I love my firearms, I am glad I did not have access to them at that time and they were safeguarded by my parents rather than the police.

I'm sorry that you had to experience that pain, I hope its no longer with you

 

[FI460]

Kids find all sorts of ways to gain access to things they're repeatedly told not to. If you have kids, should you lock up weapons? Absolutely. I don't have any and still lock them up. But they'll watch the numbers you punch in on a keypad, or where you stow a key. A tumbler will be more difficult generally, but if you accidentally leave the safe ajar they'll investigate. People are curious and determined, even the little ones.

Some may be able to pick up the code or find a hidden key, many won't. I'm not interested in searching for the nirvana solution though. I believe that legislating safe storage would have an impact on suicides and accidental firearms deaths. Won't solve the whole problem but it would certainly help.

 

[rwc101]

I'm sorry that you had to experience that pain, I hope its no longer with you

Thanks. All good now.