School shooting Florida

[P.J. Denyer]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/british-shooting-champion-survives-being-blasted-in-the-stomach-by-friend-a3474086.html

"Mr Oldring, who was a member of the England and Great Britain shooting teams and competed in European championships and the Commonwealth Games, said it felt “just like being hit with a sledgehammer” when the accident happened in a hide on a shooting range in Hampshire. "

Of course accidents happen in the UK too.

Well it's lucky I said that I 'wasn't aware of any serious incidents at a target range' in response to a series of posts about shooting at paper targets rather than 'absolutely no accidents happen in the UK relating to any firearm sport what so ever'.

 

[IanS]

My apologies, then, I misinterpreted.



Are you proposing that the solution to mitigate this potential is to prohibit home storage of guns and ammo? I think that would be too extreme a stance to fly in the USA. Home protection and all (not that I think home shootouts are in any way a sane scenario, but many do). Annual licensing, tied into a criminal/mental health database is the most likely mitigating measure, I would think. The occasional crime of passion would remain a very real threat, as it is now.

Re the highlight - the short answer is "Yes", at least in so far as I am definitely saying that as long as you allow millions of ordinary people to keep loaded guns in their homes, then you will inevitably see exactly all of the public shooting cases that we actually have seen in the US news over the past decades. IOW - afaik that is exactly what has actually happened in virtually every US shooting case (and I am thinking here particularly of the spree shootings such as the Florida School, but also most other examples of public shootings too) – in “every” case (with the caution of adding "afaik", and putting "every" in parenthesis in case there are some exceptions), what allowed to shooter to kill any of those people, was the fact that the shooter had the guns and bullets amassed in their home.

So I think we do have to address that fact. IOW, here is a statement, see if you think this is true - “As long as we continue to allow millions of private citizens in the US to stockpile guns and bullets in their own homes, then it's inevitable that every year some of those people will take their weapons onto the streets and start killing people". And no matter what other measures you introduce, such as banning automatic rifles or limiting the number of bullets, that will never significantly reduce the number of shooting incidents (unless of course you limit the number of bullets and the type of guns so dramatically that you are then very close to that same situation that I just described where loaded guns are effectively almost entirely taken out of home ownership)".


But, having said that, if you ask me "do I think that would be too extreme a stance to fly in the USA?" ... then of course I agree that at present (2018), neither US politicians or a large section of the US public want to make a change like that (i.e. effectively a ban on home ownership of guns). However - that certainly does not mean we should deny or ignore home ownership as the main cause of the problem. And nor should it mean that attempted solutions must always allow the same sort of free home ownership that exists now, because that would always be a deliberate recipe for allowing the killing to continue.

So what could I propose to do about home ownership in the US. Well, if we agree that home ownership is 90 to 99.9% of the problem (or whatever % anyone wants to pluck from the air), then I think the US or any other nation should introduce a program of reforms that are designed to minimise, over a period of time, the availability of any loaded guns in private homes (i.e. something similar to what has actually been done in the UK). Because if you fail to do that, then the killings will certainly continue, and probably with little or no significant reduction in the number of deaths.

Final point – is it inevitably the case that the US could never reduce or make illegal home ownership like that? Answer – no, obviously it's not impossible for the US or any nation to do that. But it looks as if it will take a great many more deaths and many more tragic cases like the Florida School shooting before enough people in the US and enough US politicians start to call for really serious limitations on home ownership of lethal weapons, and that may take many more decades … but if that's the only real way to stop it, then I think that in the end that will have to be done.

 

[ponderingturtle]

'Normal'.

I really can't picture firing agun in my home. The odds of shooting something or someone unintended are so high that I would never fire inside. Hell, a bullet could travel easily through walls and over to my neighbor's place. I really don't get what scenarios the home defense crew are envisioning.

It is the fantasy in their head that is important. It isn't about lying liberal math or things like that. It is about proper feelings. So the math might say having guns around your home makes you less safe, but they feel that they are going to be attacked at any moment and it makes them feel safer. It is like refusing to wear the seatbelt so that in the case of an accident you are thrown clear and unhurt.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump says the weapons used in the Parkland shooting were bought on the "black market,"

That isn't true.

He means the Black Rifle Marketplace, not an illegal market,.

 

[MikeG]

Re the highlight - the short answer is "Yes", at least in so far as I am definitely saying that as long as you allow millions of ordinary people to keep loaded guns in their homes, then.........

You keep saying this. Wouldn't your argument be satisfied if the firearm was stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It might be because I am not American, though I suspect it may be the same for everyone, but I am finding it increasing difficult to follow what views this Trump dude has on a lot of things lately.

Things like this guns thing he seems to be swinging wildly from ones side to the next depending on what day it is. Contradicting himself.

And the worrying thing is it seems to be getting more and more erratic as time passes.

Sure this dude ain't got Alzheimers or another issue?

He really really has no interest in learning anything, this is no different when he offered to sign a clean DACA bill. Never think he knows what the words he is using actually mean.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You keep saying this. Wouldn't your argument be satisfied if the firearm was stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately?

Never fly though, how are you supposed to use the castle doctrine then? Killing invaders or your family in a mistake is an american right. That is why no one ever should throw a surprise party for a gun owner.

 

[MikeG]

The other way of achieving something along the same lines might be to make it a criminal offense to allow the discharge of a firearm inside a house, with exceptions such as if shooting at an intruder. The weapon owner would be liable for any discharge, so if kids, a thief, friends, relatives.......anyone.......fires the gun in the house the owner is criminally liable. That might provide a motivation to store a weapon more safely than otherwise is the case.

 

[IanS]

'Normal'.

I really can't picture firing agun in my home. The odds of shooting something or someone unintended are so high that I would never fire inside. Hell, a bullet could travel easily through walls and over to my neighbor's place. I really don't get what scenarios the home defense crew are envisioning.

Can I just quietly and politely say that whilst you can't imagine a situation where you personally would ever fire guns in your own home, or where you would leave loaded guns casually on open access, the problem is that there are X-million gun owners in the US, and with numbers that large it's absolutely certain that every single day there will be many thousands of gun owners across the US doing exactly that and leaving loaded guns (or un-loaded guns next to boxes of bullets), all quite openly/easily available around the house for anyone to pick up. And that is always certain to continue as long as it remains so easy for people to keep all manner of guns and bullets in their own homes ... that's really the problem imho ... that's what's leading to almost all of the US public shooting cases.

 

[MikeG]

Can I just quietly and politely say that whilst you can't imagine a situation where you personally would ever fire guns in your own home, or where you would leave loaded guns casually on open access,..........

Are you familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case in Essex? Murders at Whitehouse Farm.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Are you familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case in Essex? Murders at Whitehouse Farm.

To be honest the Bamber Case strikes me as a strange one to suggest as a reason in favour of keeping guns in the house. One member of the family was a diagnosed schizophrenic and was originally thought to be the killer, but it actually was one of the other family members. They were all shot with a rifle kept in the victims home and owned by one of the victims.

(Possibly I'm misunderstanding and you're presenting it as an argument against loaded and availiable guns in the house. If so, my apologies but it is unclear which point you're making).

ETA: On rereading I'm pretty sure that you are posting this in support of IanS not as a counterpoint.

 

[IanS]

I've never kept a loaded gun in my home. I'm not allowed to. The rifle never left the range.

Good. Then that is exactly what I said right at the start of this thread (or when I started posting in the thread) - the only relatively safe way is to keep the guns securely at club premises ... you go there to shoot targets or whatever, and the guns are kept securely at those premises.

You're actually not talking about target shooting. You're talking about how to store weapons. Those are two completely different things.

I think I am talking about people who say they shoot targets (or skeets, or wild birds and animals) in the USA ... afaik, what happens in the US (you can correct me if I am wrong) is that people who keep guns in their own home, take those guns out to shoot at targets or skeets or birds and rabbits etc. Is that not the case?

Perhaps some gun clubs or ranges insist that people cannot bring their own guns? Perhaps they only allow you to use guns that stay safely on the club/range premises? But in that case I expect that many US gun owners still put up their own targets, or tin cans etc., and use their own guns from their own homes to shoot at those things? Otherwise, how and where does anyone in the US ever fire their own home-owned guns and bullets?

And just on the issue of gun owners being required to ensure safe locked storage for guns kept in their home - it's obvious that people will often fail to do that. Just as the simplest & most obvious example - how many of the millions of US gun owners ever drink to excess? How many have a drug habit? Both of those activities (alcohol and drugs) will at times become a huge distraction from the person diligently ensuring that their guns and bullets are securely locked away. And that's not a rant against people drinking (or even against drugs) - it's just a fact that huge numbers of gun owners are certain to impaired by factors like that, and often very regularly so.

 

[IanS]

I think that a reasonable argument could be made that you should need a license to keep your gun at home. If you don't get a license it stays at the range / hunting club / whatever.

Absolutely. Except that the home license has to somehow be really effective at preventing the home-owner from simply walking out onto the streets with those guns and shooting people ... otherwise it would provide virtually zero effective improvement/solution from what happens right now.

 

[IanS]

You keep saying this. Wouldn't your argument be satisfied if the firearm was stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately?

The only reason I "keep saying" loaded guns, is just to avoid anyone saying that people could be allowed to keep any sort of guns, providing they were not allowed to have bullets for them (or more likely saying that they should only be allowed a limited "small" number of bullets) ... I'm just trying to be clear in saying that the problem is that people not only have the guns but also of course have an instant almost unlimited supply of bullets for them!

The storage is a huge problem, as I just pointed out in a couple of posts above. The problem is we are not talking about 50 very carefully chosen highly vetted people in the US who are allowed to keep guns and bullets in their homes. We are talking about millions of US gun owners, a great many of whom inevitably have all the same human failings and problems that any similarly large group of entirely ordinary cross-section of society will have ...

... if you pass a law telling gun owners that they absolutely must keep their guns and bullets separate and locked in different secure parts of the house, then it's an absolute certainty that every single day tens of thousands of those people will fail to do that, and for all sorts of reasons, inc. the reason that "I just forgot" or "or I did not have time today", or "something important happened to distract me", or "I actually don't believe that is necessary", or "I was drunk at the time!" etc. etc. IOW – a law like that is almost useless and can never work unless you had government inspectors in every home 24/7.

 

[MikeG]

....... if you pass a law telling gun owners that they absolutely must keep their guns and bullets separate and locked in different secure parts of the house, then it's an absolute certainty that every single day tens of thousands of those people will fail to do that, and for all sorts of reasons, inc. the reason that "I just forgot" or "or I did not have time today", or "something important happened to distract me", or "I actually don't believe that is necessary", or "I was drunk at the time!" etc. etc. IOW – a law like that is almost useless and can never work unless you had government inspectors in every home 24/7.

.......or you pass a law dealing with the consequences of failing to keep your weapon safe, as I described previously. Make it illegal for anyone other than the weapon owner to have the weapon, and make it illegal to discharge a weapon inside a house (except at an intruder). Make the gun owner liable if the weapon falls into the hands of an intruder. It's not hard to think something up which would act as an incentive for people to manage their weapons safely indoors.

 

[ponderingturtle]

.......or you pass a law dealing with the consequences of failing to keep your weapon safe, as I described previously. Make it illegal for anyone other than the weapon owner to have the weapon, and make it illegal to discharge a weapon inside a house (except at an intruder). Make the gun owner liable if the weapon falls into the hands of an intruder. It's not hard to think something up which would act as an incentive for people to manage their weapons safely indoors.

We have laws like that, they tend to not be enforced because they are only discovered after a negligent shooting and then they have clearly suffered enough.

 

[bruto]

You keep saying this. Wouldn't your argument be satisfied if the firearm was stored unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately?

Unfortunately, though, that seems a rule that cannot easily be enforced without an intrusion that might well be worse than a law that disallows guns in the home at all. Of course, the problem of loaded guns in the home is solved by not having them loaded, but who checks whom and how?

 

[IanS]

Are you familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case in Essex? Murders at Whitehouse Farm.

I remember reading about it hearing about it at the time in the UK news reports (BBC and Times & other newspapers). I have not read any books about the full details of the case. Why? - by all means just tell us what you think is especially relevant about that case to US cases such as the Florida School shooting.

I am however more familiar with UK case of Tony Martin, which actually does have some parallels with people in the US who think they need to own guns because of a self-assumed right to shoot people dead if they find people stealing their possession or burgling their home etc.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I remember reading about it hearing about it at the time in the UK news reports (BBC and Times & other newspapers). I have not read any books about the full details of the case. Why? - by all means just tell us what you think is especially relevant about that case to US cases such as the Florida School shooting.

I am however more familiar with UK case of Tony Martin, which actually does have some parallels with people in the US who think they need to own guns because of a self-assumed right to shoot people dead if they find people stealing their possession or burgling their home etc.

I think you might be misreading MikeG's reason for mentioning that case. See my comments on it in the post following Mike's.

 

[MikeG]

To be honest the Bamber Case strikes me as a strange one to suggest as a reason in favour of keeping guns in the house. One member of the family was a diagnosed schizophrenic and was originally thought to be the killer, but it actually was one of the other family members. They were all shot with a rifle kept in the victims home and owned by one of the victims.

(Possibly I'm misunderstanding and you're presenting it as an argument against loaded and availiable guns in the house. If so, my apologies but it is unclear which point you're making).

ETA: On rereading I'm pretty sure that you are posting this in support of IanS not as a counterpoint.

Indeed. But also to make the point that things aren't perfect here, before we get accused of being holier-than-thou by the gun nuts. There were guns and ammunition strewn around the house. Made it very easy for Bamber to frame his sister for the murder of the family.