Massacre Again

whatithink said:
An Irish guy I knew well told me about how it worked in Ireland (a good few years ago now, but I doubt they've become more lenient).
  1. He had to install a gun safe, this had to be bolted to concrete and have a secure lock.
  2. He had to make an appointment with the police to come around so that they could examine #1, and verify that it met the criteria.
  3. Having received permission from the visit in #2, he could now apply for a license to purchase a shotgun for hunting purposes.
  4. After a time (background checks etc.) he was approved and issued with a license.
  5. With the license, he could now go to a gun shop and purchase a gun.
As he was now a gun owner, the police have permission to visit any time to verify that it is securely locked away in the gun safe - if it isn't then the gun is confiscated, and the license revoked - zero chance of getting another license.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain, but I don't think Ireland has a second amendment...
 
Lion Eyes said:
Let's take a little something from Italy that is not food related...

Anyone over 18 can own a gun in Italy, as long as they meet certain criteria.
They have to apply for a firearms license, take a firearms safety course at a gun range, and have no criminal record. Their physician has to sign a certificate affirming that the potential gun owner does not suffer from drug addiction or mental health issues.

Something to ponder...
Click to expand...

The NRA used to be the primary source for firearms safety and marksmanship training. I wasn't allowed to get my first hunting license until I passed their course. The safety course was taught in a high school classroom, with real rifles and shotguns as training aids. The follow-up marksmanship course was conducted in a church basement, using .22 rifles on a 50-foot target range.

But things changed at the NRA sometime in the '70s when they shifted from an emphasis on gun safety and accuracy and took up the policy of unrestricted gun ownership. You would never get a common-sense policy like the Italian one you cited unless the NRA released its hold on our politicians.
 
Lion Eyes said:
True.

But In what was posted from Italy I don't think it would be overturned per the 2nd, 4th or 5th amendments...
Click to expand...
That depends on the makeup of SCOTUS. Its not what's in the amendments or how they were interpreted, but how the current SCOTUS decides by a majority. I'd say it wouldn't stand with this SCOTUS, but whatdoiknow.
 
espola said:
The NRA used to be the primary source for firearms safety and marksmanship training. I wasn't allowed to get my first hunting license until I passed their course. The safety course was taught in a high school classroom, with real rifles and shotguns as training aids. The follow-up marksmanship course was conducted in a church basement, using .22 rifles on a 50-foot target range.

But things changed at the NRA sometime in the '70s when they shifted from an emphasis on gun safety and accuracy and took up the policy of unrestricted gun ownership. You would never get a common-sense policy like the Italian one you cited unless the NRA released its hold on our politicians.
Click to expand...
Seems like a good place to start and as I posted I don't think there would be 2nd, 4th or 5th amendments problems...
Time will tell.
 
whatithink said:
That depends on the makeup of SCOTUS. Its not what's in the amendments or how they were interpreted, but how the current SCOTUS decides by a majority. I'd say it wouldn't stand with this SCOTUS, but whatdoiknow.
Click to expand...
Texas doesn't allow anyone under 21 yrs. to buy a handgun...
 
Lion Eyes said:
Yeah? So?
Have you examples where this type of information was withheld in Texas?
Click to expand...

Texas has a "dead suspect loophole" law that allows police departments and local governments to keep details of crimes shielded from the public. It is usually invoked when revealing the information might be embarrassing to police or public officials.

www.texastribune.org

Texas law allows police to keep details about deceased suspects confidential

What started with a routine shoplifting call ended with the death of a 19-year-old Austinite in police custody. More than a year later, the public still hasn't seen video that would reveal what happened that day — because state law allows police to keep it secret.
www.texastribune.org www.texastribune.org
 
Last edited:
whatithink said:
An Irish guy I knew well told me about how it worked in Ireland (a good few years ago now, but I doubt they've become more lenient).
  1. He had to install a gun safe, this had to be bolted to concrete and have a secure lock.
  2. He had to make an appointment with the police to come around so that they could examine #1, and verify that it met the criteria.
  3. Having received permission from the visit in #2, he could now apply for a license to purchase a shotgun for hunting purposes.
  4. After a time (background checks etc.) he was approved and issued with a license.
  5. With the license, he could now go to a gun shop and purchase a gun.
As he was now a gun owner, the police have permission to visit any time to verify that it is securely locked away in the gun safe - if it isn't then the gun is confiscated, and the license revoked - zero chance of getting another license.
Click to expand...
That horse has left the barn in the US. I would like to see gun owners held personally liable for crimes and injuries caused by a gun licensed to them...both criminally and civilly. I'd bet that would motivate gun owners who don't already do so to put their guns in a secure safe.
 
watfly said:
That horse has left the barn in the US. I would like to see gun owners held personally liable for crimes and injuries caused by a gun licensed to them...both criminally and civilly. I'd bet that would motivate gun owners who don't already do so to put their guns in a secure safe.
Click to expand...
Gun manufacturers should be in charge of screening potential buyers and be held responsible if they don’t follow through with proper vetting.
 
espola said:
Gun manufacturers are in most cases politically protected -- a legacy of the w years.

en.wikipedia.org

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
A friend from back in the old country, Philly, suggested this:

I have a proposal that a number of people have found acceptable AND effective (including big 2nd Amendment supporters). First, passing a firearm safety class prior is required to even begin the buying process. Second, a proficiency check on the weapon being purchased (we've got enough people getting shot, the last thing we need is someone buying guns who can't hit the broadside of a barn!). This must be renewed every two years (or less) - if they can't pass it, TFB, turn in the weapon or face a massive fine/jail time. Third, a minimum 10-14 day waiting period before the sale is finalized. Fourth (and this is the MOST important one), EXTENSIVE, in depth background/mental health checks prior to finalizing the purchase.

BUT - it won't be the Government running these classes/tests/background checks. It will be paid for and the records retained by the manufacturers and distributers. The records cannot be released to anyone EXCEPT their insurance companies and/or courts wherein someone is trying to include the manufacturers/distributers. IF they ran the checks correctly (VERY extensive and thorough), they are insulated against any verdict or judgement against them. HOWEVER, if they didn't run the checks the way they're supposed to, they automatically, by law, are responsible for no less than 50% of any judgement (the other 50% to be assigned based on what the jury decides as for percentages of liability, so it could go up significantly higher than just 50%)

Would this work? You bet your a$$ it would. ONE time where the company/store didn't do what they were supposed to and their insurance policies would be cancelled immediately. No other insurance company would touch them and they'd be out of business in a matter of months. And that ONE time would cause every other company/store to toe the line, dot every i and cross every t, and make DAMN sure every check was done correctly.

Sure, it would add to the cost of each gun (less than you might expect because there would be a volume discount). But if that's what is needed to reduce the number of these kinds of shootings, then that's what needs to be done. And it spreads the cost over ALL gun owners (and NOT the general population) - I've heard many, many times about how most gun owners are responsible, so they should have an issue with sharing the costs.
 
watfly said:
That horse has left the barn in the US. I would like to see gun owners held personally liable for crimes and injuries caused by a gun licensed to them...both criminally and civilly. I'd bet that would motivate gun owners who don't already do so to put their guns in a secure safe.
Click to expand...
And yet (GOP) FL passed some common sense red flag laws a few years back, despite opposition from the NRA (downgraded pols from A to C on guns) and the political blow back from the electorate was basically zero. People, i.e. us, are fine with common sense gun laws to keep the guns out of or to take the guns away from those that shouldn't have them.

BTW, you do know that you don't have to register your gun in many states, e.g. AZ for instance, so the whole "licensed" guns is a misnomer. There is no national database of owners, there's no national database of gun violence even ... 'cos the NRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top