Multiple shot dead by Florida gunman

Original post by joecphillips

You do know it is against federal law for mentally ill people to buy a gun

Yes, but as you can see from this very case, they can still own one as long as they purchased it before they've gone mad.

Reply 142

Original post by Little Toy Gun

When a young child shoots someone to death accidentally, do we arrest the child and give them the death penalty; or do we take away the gun?

Nice argument but can you name me 1 state where a young child can buy a gun.

By young child I assume you mean under 10?

And in the USA it depends as children older than 6 can be arrested.

Here a 8 year old was arrested http://thefreethoughtproject.com/autistic-8-year-child-arrested-put-straight-jacket-school-outburst/

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 143

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Yes, but as you can see from this very case, they can still own one as long as they purchased it before they've gone mad.

Yes and I've said that they need to sort that out not take everyone's guns away from them

Reply 144

Original post by jape

Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any metro area in the US. Consistently the highest deaths. California has the strictest of any state, exceedingly high gun deaths. Even if you think the Second Amendment is daft, getting each other off about how civilised we all are for not having guns is pointless because firearm ownership is so prolific in the US is can't be reversed.

I agree that it can't be reversed and I'm just grateful the US exists so whenever I dislike anything about where I'm living, I can be glad that I'm not living in the US at least.

But that's irrelevant. I don't even care about Americans shooting each other. Just here to debate the issue itself.

To respond to what you said:

There are no border checks between states, and so individual state laws are meaningless, let alone individual cities' laws. As mentioned, in a normal country, I'd need to know someone in the gang or drug cartel to get hold of a gun; in the US, in the worst scenario you can just travel to another state.

As for whether "strict" gun laws work, one thing people forget is that "strictness" in the US is very different. People say DC is very strict and still they have the highest gun deaths per capita, but they are "strict" only because they ban open carrying of guns. In reality, their "strict" gun laws did not stop a 24% gun ownership. It's similar for California.

Reply 145

Original post by joecphillips

Nice argument but can you name me 1 state where a young child can buy a gun.

By young child I assume you mean under 10?

And in the USA it depends as children older than 6 can be arrested.

Here a 8 year old was arrested http://thefreethoughtproject.com/autistic-8-year-child-arrested-put-straight-jacket-school-outburst/

I said accidentally. When it's intentional, both killed. When it's accidental, the gun did. And babies shooting people have happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/26/a-4-year-old-playing-with-a-gun-on-thanksgiving-allegedly-shot-a-2-year-old-cousin-police-say/?utm_term=.859ea5c10789

Nice diversion, but whether they're allowed to buy a gun is irrelevant. You asked if the gun or the person was to blame.

Reply 146

Original post by Little Toy Gun

I agree that it can't be reversed and I'm just grateful the US exists so whenever I dislike anything about where I'm living, I can be glad that I'm not living in the US at least.

But that's irrelevant. I don't even care about Americans shooting each other. Just here to debate the issue itself.

To respond to what you said:

There are no border checks between states, and so individual state laws are meaningless, let alone individual cities' laws. As mentioned, in a normal country, I'd need to know someone in the gang or drug cartel to get hold of a gun; in the US, in the worst scenario you can just travel to another state.

As for whether "strict" gun laws work, one thing people forget is that "strictness" in the US is very different. People say DC is very strict and still they have the highest gun deaths per capita, but they are "strict" only because they ban open carrying of guns. In reality, their "strict" gun laws did not stop a 24% gun ownership. It's similar for California.

If you cross state lines to buy a gun it has to go throw a federally firearm licensed dealer and it must comply with the laws of both states

Reply 147

Original post by Sabertooth

Maybe you could tell me why Mexico has far more gun crime than the US despite having much stricter gun laws?

Because that's not true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
United States - 10.54
Mexico - 7.64

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Reply 148

Original post by Little Toy Gun

I said accidentally. When it's intentional, both killed. When it's accidental, the gun did. And babies shooting people have happened: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/26/a-4-year-old-playing-with-a-gun-on-thanksgiving-allegedly-shot-a-2-year-old-cousin-police-say/?utm_term=.859ea5c10789

Nice diversion, but whether they're allowed to buy a gun is irrelevant. You asked if the gun or the person was to blame.

In the situation you mentioned it would be neither the child or the gun it would be the negligent parent who let the child get the gun, your link shows this as they arrested them

Also wikihow shows you how to make a gun http://m.wikihow.com/Make-a-Real-Gun

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 149

Original post by joecphillips

In the situation you mentioned it would be neither the child or the gun it would be the negligent parent who let the child get the gun, your link shows this as they arrested them

Did they arrest them without taking away the gun? If neither the baby nor the gun was the problem, surely arresting the parents would've done the trick already?

Reply 150

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Did they arrest them without taking away the gun? If neither the baby nor the gun was the problem, surely arresting the parents would've done the trick already?

The police do take evidence and the gun when someone has been shot it is pretty handy for the case and it depends on the state whether the gun owners could get it back, if it was the 2 arrested they won't as that is also against the law to own it.

You gave me a choice of do we hold the child or the gun was held accountable and I answered neither of them, so you have moved the goalposts.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 151

Sabertooth

20

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Because that's not true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
United States - 10.54
Mexico - 7.64

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year

Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.

Reply 152

Original post by Sabertooth

Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.

In that situation it's about
USA 3.85
Mexico 7.2

Just without suicides

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 153

Original post by joecphillips

The police do take evidence and the gun when someone has been shot it is pretty handy for the case and it depends on the state whether the gun owners could get it back, if it was the 2 arrested they won't as that is also against the law to own it.

You gave me a choice of do we hold the child or the gun was held accountable and I answered neither of them, so you have moved the goalposts.

I didn't move the goalpost. All along it was the same - who do we hold responsible? You said the parents. If it's only the parents and neither the child nor the gun, then only the parents would be dealt with. In this case, it's both the parents and the gun, as it is in basically any other case.

Otherwise, once someone's served their sentence or paid the fine, they should be given their gun back.

Reply 154

Original post by Little Toy Gun

I didn't move the goalpost. All along it was the same - who do we hold responsible? You said the parents. If it's only the parents and neither the child nor the gun, then only the parents would be dealt with. In this case, it's both the parents and the gun, as it is in basically any other case.

Otherwise, once someone's served their sentence or paid the fine, they should be given their gun back.

No the sentence includes the fact they can not own a gun in the future, just like if a teacher is caught sleeping with a student they are not given their job back after their sentence they are banned from teaching

Reply 155

Original post by Sabertooth

Yes if you include suicides and unintentional. I think it's fairly obvious that people here are talking about homicides.

Then to answer your question, it's because Mexico is a developing country with a higher murder rate in general, one that's fueled by a weaker rule of law and corruption. 54% of all homicides in Mexico were carried out by firearms, compared to 60% in the US. This means homicide is a bigger problem in Mexico, but with stricter gun laws, the result is that firearms-related homicide is a bigger problem in the US.

You may want to remember that most of firearms-related crimes in Mexico have to do exclusively with the drug cartels in very selected pockets, something that's not the same in the US. You may also want to know that the Mexican constitution likewise give residents a right to keep arms.

This is without mentioning the fact that a part of the Mexican firearms-related murders has to do with the US's gun laws themselves - Mexicans got their guns from the US, to sell drugs consumed mostly by Americans. Without the US producing so many guns, it would have been more difficult and costly for Mexican cartels to have them.

Reply 156