School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
IanS said:
When I described US gun owners as ordinary citizens who are allowed to keep guns and bullets in their own home, I did not of course mean that all these people must actually "own" that property in the sense having completely paid for it.

If & when I described them as "US homeowners", then that was just a shorthand way of talking about all the private US citizens who are living continuously in some relatively fixed address/building where they they also keep their guns in that same home building (and by "continuously" I just mean as distinct from homeless, or relatively homeless, or itinerant people, who for whatever reason have no fixed place in which they normally live from one day to the next ...

... when & if described them as "homeowners", I am just using that single word, “homeowner”, to avoid spelling out the above description every time that I want to talk about citizens in the USA who own guns and bullets that they have paid for and which they keep year-in-year out in the same building where they live each day & night in the same rooms of that same building.

And when I just said above (twice) "when & if" I described them as "homeowners, I am just highlighting the fact that if you have read my posts here (as I'm sure you have), you will see that I have also refereed to the same people as "US gun owners who keep their guns and bullets in their own private homes" (where of course I mean the homes or accommodation where they live).

You might just as well question my terminology when I call them "private citizens" or "ordinary citizens" - you might ask in a critical way "in what way are they private or ordinary?" ... and again I just mean normal members of the US public, as opposed to individuals who may be required to carry or keep firearms for some legal reasons or some reasons of specific specialised employment. It's just a shorthand expression to avoid spelling it out every time, to call them "private ordinary citizens".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that. MikeG had accused me of looking for things to take offense to earlier, and I Poe-ed up an offended response. Thought it was clear I was kidding, but I don't think it came across.
 
Ranb said:
But they can go anywhere to do that;
Click to expand...

Non-the-less, this is what is referred to as the gun-show-loophole because a gun show is a popular place to meet for these transactions. You may disagree with this fact, but it still doesn't change the inherent problems with allowing such sales to happen, which is the ability to bypass background checks to legally buy a gun.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Non-the-less, this is what is referred to as the gun-show-loophole because a gun show is a popular place to meet for these transactions. You may disagree with this fact, but it still doesn't change the inherent problems with allowing such sales to happen, which is the ability to bypass background checks to legally buy a gun.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to hear the advantages and disadvantages of the "gun show" and store options. Presumably store bought gives a warranty and perhaps greater choice. But what about price, would you pay more to avoid the background checks?
 
Zambo said:
I would be interested to hear the advantages and disadvantages of the "gun show" and store options. Presumably store bought gives a warranty and perhaps greater choice. But what about price, would you pay more to avoid the background checks?
Click to expand...

It's dependent on both the seller and the buyer. A seller may be looking to just offload a weapon they don't want and could care less about the stability of the person they are selling to. The "loophole" essentially takes any liability away from a private seller if they happen to sell to a criminal.
 
MikeG said:
But that's just ridiculous. Can you think of a country, anywhere, where you can keep guns in your house but not bullets? No, I thought not.

And words have meanings. Loaded means the bullets are in the gun.

Certainly in the UK if you find a gun cabinet, you'll know there are bullets somewhere in the house. You may be using it as some sort of shorthand, but it is misleading (ie you're not necessarily talking about actual loaded guns) and it makes you look as though you know nothing about the subject.
Click to expand...



Well, this is getting very silly and utterly pedantic now – please look at all my subsequent posts since you first complained about my phrase saying “loaded guns” … you will see that after your first complaint I have often spelt it out saying (instead of “loaded guns”) “private homes where guns and bullets are kept together in the same location, such that the gun can be instantly loaded to fire at anyone” …. so there has been no doubt about what I mean when I say that millions of US homeowners keep “loaded guns” in their own homes.

And as far as you saying/suggesting that all cases of gun ownership will always be cases where the person also keeps the bullets near to the guns – that is highly misleading from you, because we have been talking here about possible solutions to the use/ownership of guns causing so many deaths in the USA, and one of the things I said several times waaaay back near the start of this thread, was/is that one possibility might be to make people keep either their guns or else the bullets at a secure separate location such as a gun club … so that when they when they wanted to fire their guns then would they have to go to the gun club instead of merely loading their gun in seconds at home and firing at whatever they liked.

But if you ask incredulously about any country or situation where someone who keeps a gun does not also keep the bullets together with the gun, then afaik that is very often what UK gangland criminal gun owners do. They keep the bullets in a different location, so as to minimise police charges if they are caught with either the bullets or with an empty handgun (usually an ancient re-converted pistol). And they also do that partly to avoid the situation where the gun can be instantly fired by anyone in the house! … what they normally do (afaik … e.g., check the history of cases like Mark Duggan), is to give the guns to under-age gang members or relatives, and keep the bullets themselves at some other location … then when they decide to threaten or actually shoot some other gang member they retrieve both items and take the bullets with the gun direct to the specific location where they confront the other person with the just loaded gun.

However, overall as you very well know – when I say people in the USA keep “loaded guns” in their home, (1) I simply mean that they have the bullets and the gun together in the same small precise location such that the gun can be loaded and fired in a matter of seconds, and I have spelt that out in several previous posts, and (2) if you are implying that all US gun owners do keep their guns safely un-loaded with the bullets in some other safe separate locked cabinet in the home, then I think you are obviously wrong! … on the contrary, with as many as 100 million US gun owners (or however many millions it is), it is quite certain that a fair percentage of them will at various times throughout the year, leave their guns not only loaded but also just laying around the house and not locked securely away, or else will lock a loaded gun in the cabinet … all of those combinations of loaded and unloaded are likely to be common across the vast mass of US gun owners in the general day-today ownership of guns and bullets that they keep in their own family homes.
 
As I said...loaded means the bullets are in the guns. It does not mean what you want it to mean.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Ranb said:
But they can go anywhere to do that;
Click to expand...

Non-the-less, this is what is referred to as the gun-show-loophole because a gun show is a popular place to meet for these transactions. You may disagree with this fact, but it still doesn't change the inherent problems with allowing such sales to happen, which is the ability to bypass background checks to legally buy a gun.
Click to expand...



Ranb seems to want to obfuscate the issue over what is a common usage of the expression. I'm a little bit surprised, since he normally doesn't resort to such tactics, and is something of a voice of reason on the gun-defender side of the debate.

Maybe this will help.

This article is about a U.S. political term. For information about U.S. gun shows, see Gun shows in the United States.

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]
Click to expand...


It is trivially obvious that among the easiest ways for strangers to encounter each other in person for the express purpose of buying and selling guns without any sort of meaningful regulation is by going to gun shows.

Hence the term and usage.

I don't understand why Ranb is trying to play ignorant about this. He is certainly aware of how the expression came into being, and there isn't much question as to its validity.

Sure, such encounters can happen elsewhere, but gun shows are the poster child for this loophole.

He's just going to have to live with that until the facts (and the laws) change.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Apologies if it sounded like I was taking offense, I certainly don't. You seem to be saying that you think a large percentage of killings in the US are impulsive, fuelled by drinking or anger, and I really think that is not the case. While it is for sure possible, in practice the gun owners statistically do so very rarely. The gun problem in the US, and it's a big one, overwhelmingly revolves around suicide and street crime.
Click to expand...


No, I am not saying it's a large percentage of all the cases (I don't think I actually said that, did I?). I have no guess as to what percentage it might be. However, I am saying it's probably a large number of cases ... the point being that with so many US gun owners and so many shooting cases each year (not just all homicides, but also the much less reported cases of wounding or shooting where people might very easily have been wounded or killed), it's virtually certain amongst such large numbers that many of the cases will involve shooters who are either intoxicated or else high on drugs.

And just re. suicides and street crime - I expect quite a lot of those sort of cases will in fact be the sort of incidents where alcohol and drugs are often a significant factor.

You seem to be saying that you believe US gun owners are mostly very responsible people. Well that may be true. But in a country with as many as 100 million gun owners and 300 million guns (or whatever the precise figures are), it's surely inevitable that each year tens of thousands of those gun owners will in fact be handling their guns (inc. loaded guns) at various times when their judgement is significantly impaired by excess alcohol or drugs ... just on the size of the numbers alone I think that's inevitable.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
As I said...loaded means the bullets are in the guns. It does not mean what you want it to mean.
Click to expand...


OK, one last word about this from me (well I hope it's all I need to say) - when people keep guns and bullets in their home, as apparently 100 million people do in the US, is it true that each year tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of those gun owners will be at home taking bullets from a box (or wherever) and putting those bullets into various guns, i.e. doing that in their home? I think the only credible answer is "Yes, of course that must be the case with many thousands of US gun owners every single day" ... well, at that point all of those people do have "loaded guns" in their home, don't they!

OK, well, suppose they then remove the bullets from the guns; then at that moment they are not "loaded guns" any more ... and then suppose they put the bullets back in the guns, now they are "loaded" again ... Point is it's a "distinction" without any actual real distinction"! ... because it's completely fluid and an entirely facile ("easy") action going from loaded to unloaded whenever the owner wants to. Also ..

..,. what happens in those states where open or concealed public "carry" is allowed? That's a genuine question (I do not know the answer). Do people who carry guns in public like that, carry them unloaded? Or are they carrying loaded guns? If they are carrying loaded guns then (a) that is actually worse than merely having the "loaded gun" in the home (they actually have a "loaded gun" on the public streets!), and (b) in that case (if their public carry is loaded), then presumably they loaded it home before they left the house, in which case it was a loaded gun in the house! :rolleyes:
 
catsmate said:
Successful? Zero.
Click to expand...

I've read a legal opinion that suggests he could very well win as the relevent age discrimination legislation doesn't have a lower boundry other than 'of age'. It specifically excludes selling alcohol to under 21's and discounts for the over fifties but those excepts are liable to 'prove the law' in this case. I very much doubt that this is what anyone intended when drafting the law but unfortunately that is the way it's been written.
 
IanS said:
No, I am not saying it's a large percentage of all the cases (I don't think I actually said that, did I?). I have no guess as to what percentage it might be.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. From your post #2728, for example:
But even more importantly, where the vast mass of the US shootings each year are NOT spree shooting such as that in the Florida school, but are instead the sort of incidents I described above where a home owner has simply taken his guns and decided for various reasons to shoot at people …
Click to expand...
The actual numbers in shooting deaths are (rounded):

33,000 total deaths- over half to two thirds are suicides, primarily by handgun. Of the remaining, over half are gang/street violence in poor urban areas (chilling sidenote- the average homicide victim in the US is a black male under 25yrs old, at 55%). Total fatalities left, including mass shootings, self-defense, accidents, and law enforcement kills, are well under 8,000. Out of 100,000,000 legal owners. The problem in the US is not a drunk or angry guy impulsively shooting people by a long shot; it's pretty rare.

However, I am saying it's probably a large number of cases ... the point being that with so many US gun owners and so many shooting cases each year (not just all homicides, but also the much less reported cases of wounding or shooting where people might very easily have been wounded or killed), it's virtually certain amongst such large numbers that many of the cases will involve shooters who are either intoxicated or else high on drugs.

And just re. suicides and street crime - I expect quite a lot of those sort of cases will in fact be the sort of incidents where alcohol and drugs are often a significant factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, entirely agreed. But your argument leads to a different conclusion- drugs and alcohol would be the primary problem. A more lethal one in fact, because a drunk could also get in a car and kill. or wreak havoc in other ways. If you are arguing that being drunk or high overwhelmingly contributes to shootings, the logical conclusion is the banning of drugs and drink, I would think. But no, you say. Drinking is enjoyed responsibly by the overwhelming majority, and {fill in the gun equivalent arguments here}.

You seem to be saying that you believe US gun owners are mostly very responsible people. Well that may be true. But in a country with as many as 100 million gun owners and 300 million guns (or whatever the precise figures are), it's surely inevitable that each year tens of thousands of those gun owners will in fact be handling their guns (inc. loaded guns) at various times when their judgement is significantly impaired by excess alcohol or drugs ... just on the size of the numbers alone I think that's inevitable.
Click to expand...

You are right, mixing drugs and guns is never going to work out well. That is a fantastic argument for alcohol and drug regulation. Let's say we ban alcohol in homes for a start, using your logic. You can buy and own it, of course, but you can only store and drink it at at the local pub. Sounding good so far?
 
IanS said:
..,. what happens in those states where open or concealed public "carry" is allowed? That's a genuine question (I do not know the answer). Do people who carry guns in public like that, carry them unloaded? Or are they carrying loaded guns? If they are carrying loaded guns then (a) that is actually worse than merely having the "loaded gun" in the home (they actually have a "loaded gun" on the public streets!), and (b) in that case (if their public carry is loaded), then presumably they loaded it home before they left the house, in which case it was a loaded gun in the house! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yep. Loaded on the streets, in those states that allow it (most).
 
IanS said:
OK, one last word about this from me (well I hope it's all I need to say) - when people keep guns and bullets in their home, as apparently 100 million people do in the US, is it true that each year tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of those gun owners will be at home taking bullets from a box (or wherever) and putting those bullets into various guns, i.e. doing that in their home? I think the only credible answer is "Yes, of course that must be the case with many thousands of US gun owners every single day" ... well, at that point all of those people do have "loaded guns" in their home, don't they!

OK, well, suppose they then remove the bullets from the guns; then at that moment they are not "loaded guns" any more ... and then suppose they put the bullets back in the guns, now they are "loaded" again ... Point is it's a "distinction" without any actual real distinction"! ... because it's completely fluid and an entirely facile ("easy") action going from loaded to unloaded whenever the owner wants to. Also ..

..,. what happens in those states where open or concealed public "carry" is allowed? That's a genuine question (I do not know the answer). Do people who carry guns in public like that, carry them unloaded? Or are they carrying loaded guns? If they are carrying loaded guns then (a) that is actually worse than merely having the "loaded gun" in the home (they actually have a "loaded gun" on the public streets!), and (b) in that case (if their public carry is loaded), then presumably they loaded it home before they left the house, in which case it was a loaded gun in the house! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What is it that you don't understand? In the U.S., adults are entitled to own and keep firearms unless they are prohibited from doing so for specific reasons. Some states impose stricter requirements than others regarding registration, waiting periods etc., especially for handguns, but once you buy it you can keep it loaded under your bed or on your kitchen table or in your waistband at home. Most states -- but not all --issue concealed carry permits that allow holders to carry loaded handguns concealed on their persons in public. Most states -- again, not all -- also allow open carry, where loaded firearms are carried in public in plain view without any additional permits.

You can't apply the laws and perspectives of any other country to the U.S.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom