What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[dogs4thewin]

This would happen more if all guns were registered and there was a nationwide police data base of guns.

What would?

 

[dogs4thewin]

What is your point? Convicting folks of manslaughter would be a major step forward.

They ARE convicted of manslaughter involuntary because that is what it is. My point was that the poster said it should be treated as murder, yet it is NOT murder the law.

 

[Zoii]

There ARE controls what is debated is what kinds of controls there should be, but they do exist For example, it is a federal crime for convicted felons (unless they have been pardoned) to even own guns or even amo within their OWN homes. Some states even say that NO ONE can have guns in the home if a convicted felon lived there. There are laws that prevent the mentally ill ( assuming that their illness is documented) from having guns, same with drug addicts and many crimes of violence ( even if they do not rise to the level of a felony). There ARE controls.

Ok thanks for that. So where do you think it's all gone wrong?

 

[Allandavid]

This supports the idea that if a person doesn't have a gun to do his killing, he will find something else to do it with.

And it also supports the idea that guns make a far more efficient killing-tool than do cars...

 

[Allandavid]

AND....it didn't involve machine guns, bump stocks, easy access to guns, certain types of ammo, high capacity magazines, or even a single shot being fired. Again, if someone wants to kill, they'll do it with whatever means they can find to do it with.

And again, guns are far more efficient and lethal in that regard. Yet you people prefer to exist in an environment where there are hardly any checks on their use....

 

[dogs4thewin]

Ok thanks for that. So where do you think it's all gone wrong?

Well for one thing the bad people ( that would get a firearm any now use guns where they used to use fists. In other words, they will shoot their enemy gang member whether than have a man to man fight. A lot of it have to do with poverty and drugs; sometimes it is like do unto others BEFORE they do unto you in those rougher nieborhoods. People have to learn that violence is not the way to deal with things. It starts at home; violence for the most part is a learned behavior people do not know where their children are and allow the streets to raise them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

And again, guns are far more efficient and lethal in that regard. Yet you people prefer to exist in an environment where there are hardly any checks on their use....

There are federal checks and balances different states may or may not add more to it.

 

[mark46]

They ARE convicted of manslaughter involuntary because that is what it is. My point was that the poster said it should be treated as murder, yet it is NOT murder the law.

fair enough

It certainly is not murder.

 

[jardiniere]

Yes, they should but poor judgement does NOT equal that is what murder takes not should have known better not poor judgement. Heck did you know that sometimes if someone honestly DOES what appears to be murder drunk or high many times they can get a reduced sentence (if they were not committing ANOTHER felony at the time of the murder) because they lacked the ability to have the required intent for first degree murder? That is WAY different than a parent who granted uses very poor judgement in allowing a toddler to access a firearm.

You know murder is a legal term, that can be applied to whatever crime the state deems reasonable. Get-away drivers in bank heists are charged with murder if the heist results in people being killed. I'm darn sure that it's reasonable to charge negligent gun owners with murder if children use those guns in an "accidental" death of themselves or another.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You know murder is a legal term, that can be applied to whatever crime the state deems reasonable. Get-away drivers in bank heists are charged with murder if the heist results in people being killed. I'm darn sure that it's reasonable to charge negligent gun owners with murder if children use those guns in an "accidental" death of themselves or another.

Two points the VAST majority of jurtiditions define murder as an intent crime whereas involuntary man slaughter is not that is the point of the charge is cover homicides that were not intendtional but resulted from very poor judgement. Secondly, even if a DA was crazy enough to try to charge the person with murder most DA'S know that that charge would be darn near IMPOSSIBLE to make stick if it were taken to trial and then they may end up getting NO conviction at all. As it relates to bank robbery that is called the felony murder rule the underlying charge MUST be a felony and the person must die as a reasonable result of that felony. Leaving a gun on a table is neither a felony, nor is death a foreseeable result JUST by that action ( after all a gun is not going to shoot itself).

 

[Aldebaran]

No, no I don't. Again, perhaps my education and career being largely data and statistics driven make me prone to relying on data and statistics to support my position.

Then you won't have children due to how the numbers tell you that it would add to overpopulation?

 

[Aldebaran]

Serious question here: do you honestly think the world's largest military complete with Tomahawk Cruise missles and nuclear weapons galore would give one whit about your 12 gauge shotgun?

They would when they show up at your door to put you in a concentration camp. No nukes or cruise missiles were used to round up the Japanese in America during World War 2. They ended up losing everything.
When it comes to defense at a more local level, it was the Korean shop owners that were armed whose businesses weren't looted during the Los Angeles riots.

 

[Aldebaran]

You mean no controls obviously. If you had control you wouldn't have the insane statistics that the USA does. And you just told me before that controls shouldn't be in place. Are you saying now that the USA does try and control it? Your being very self contradictory which of course it's exactly what the gun lobby is

None? Seriously?
Are you saying there are no controls over who can manufacture firearms, what their barrel lengths can be, or where they can be sold? Aren't there any background checks or waiting periods and fees that have to be paid to do them? Are there no restrictions on when and where firearms can be used, such as within city limits? Is there no age requirement that must be met to buy a firearm or ammunition? Are fully automatic guns available for people to buy at your local gun store? How about silencers? Are felons allowed to buy or own firearms?

Sure. No controls. Obviously.

 

[Aldebaran]

I asked another person on this forum if they actually thought they could kill another human being. To see their bullets blow up a human head right in front of them. The reason I ask is because I've seen plenty of interviews with people after war who, even when they were actively being shot at by enemy soldiers, seemed to be horrified when they finally killed an enemy soldier. It seems like something that is not very easy to do. And when you take someone who is just a regular Joe or Jane Sixpack, how likely is it that they will 1) be able to think quickly enough to eliminate the threat 2) accurately eliminate a real threat (and not accidentally shoot someone who isn't a threat) 3) be able to deal with the anguish of having done that.

That's why I think it's a fantasy for 99.9% of Americans who think they will be able to defend themselves with a gun.

With all the gun crimes people like to cite, it's obvious that people can bring themselves to use a firearm on another person. If gang members can shoot someone as an initiation requirement, or take out rival gang members because they wore the wrong colors, or if a man can shoot another guy for sleeping with his wife, or if a cop or soldier can shoot someone because they feared for their life, then why would you doubt that people in general would completely freeze up and not be able to shoot someone who they felt was about to kill them or their loved ones?

 

[jardiniere]

Two points the VAST majority of jurtiditions define murder as an intent crime whereas involuntary man slaughter is not that is the point of the charge is cover homicides that were not intendtional but resulted from very poor judgement. Secondly, even if a DA was crazy enough to try to charge the person with murder most DA'S know that that charge would be darn near IMPOSSIBLE to make stick if it were taken to trial and then they may end up getting NO conviction at all. As it relates to bank robbery that is called the felony murder rule the underlying charge MUST be a felony and the person must die as a reasonable result of that felony. Leaving a gun on a table is neither a felony, nor is death a foreseeable result JUST by that action ( after all a gun is not going to shoot itself).

This is simple. You keep a gun unlocked in your home, make it a felony if discovered in the event of a death. Because it really is a foreseeable result with children in the home-it's happened time and time again, just like bank heists. What is so awful about being charged with a felony when a child dies from your gun? If that gun was something you purchased and placed unlocked near a child-you are for sure as culpable as a getaway driver if it results in a death. I keep my guns locked, and locked up, unless it's to take them to a range. And the key is nowhere a child can find it. It's easy, and it's the right and ethical thing to do, and people that don't, don't really respect the responsibility that comes with the right to own guns.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Then you won't have children due to how the numbers tell you that it would add to overpopulation?

I don't have children because my wife and I don't want children.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't have children because my wife and I don't want children.

Did numbers have anything to do with it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

If gang members can shoot someone as an initiation requirement, or take out rival gang members because they wore the wrong colors, or if a man can shoot another guy for sleeping with his wife, or if a cop or soldier can shoot someone because they feared for their life, then why would you doubt that people in general would completely freeze up and not be able to shoot someone who they felt was about to kill them or their loved ones?

Because I don't think most people are capable of that. Yes there are people who can kill others. I just question the idea that more Americans with guns will mean there is more "safety". Clearly the numbers do NOT show that.

The oft-touted 2.5 Million DGU's (Defensive Gun Uses) that the NRA likes to trot out (and posters on this thread have posted recently) is based on Kleck's 1993 study based on phone survey with various shortcomings (SOURCE). The Federal Bureau of Justice statistics show a much lower rate (67,740).

The statistics however do show that firearms in the home increase dangers to women and higher rates of successful suicides in the home.

It just seems that it is really hard to find a legitimate source of information that America really IS a nation full of Bruce Willis in Die Hard action heroes.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Did numbers have anything to do with it?

No. But I'm glad for it. I do plenty of other things based on the best evidence. I put solar on my house, I drive an electric car, etc.

I use statistics to do my job in Research and Development. I rely on understanding the data as it exists and trying to avoid anecdotal data to base my decisions on.

 

[Aldebaran]

Because I don't think most people are capable of that. Yes there are people who can kill others. I just question the idea that more Americans with guns will mean there is more "safety". Clearly the numbers do NOT show that.

But the actions of those who have actually used a firearm in defense, and the fact that they are still alive show something better than what any amount of numbers do.

It just seems that it is really hard to find a legitimate source of information that America really IS a nation full of Bruce Willis in Die Hard action heroes.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing.