Remove Your Guns And Ammo From Your Luggage!

[sft429]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Conservative judges are not necessarily unthinking - I am inclined to believe that the entire Court are capable of understanding the concept of “WELL REGULATED” , as it becomes increasingly obvious that the absence of significant and appropriate regulation is contributing to the denial to many citizens of their right to life.

 

The fact that many states already have long-standing statutes on their books (New York’s Sulllivan Law for example) demonstrates that regulation is already acceptable.  

 

What is is needed is effective monitoring to enforce such acceptable regulation.

 

 

From the Constitution Society:

 

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[A2Mich]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Conservative judges are not necessarily unthinking - I am inclined to believe that the entire Court are capable of understanding the concept of “WELL REGULATED” , as it becomes increasingly obvious that the absence of significant and appropriate regulation is contributing to the denial to many citizens of their right to life.

 

The fact that many states already have long-standing statutes on their books (New York’s Sulllivan Law for example) demonstrates that regulation is already acceptable.  

 

What is is needed is effective monitoring to enforce such acceptable regulation.

 

Yet, you yourself are ignoring what the founders called a well regulated militia. The Federalist Papers clearly explain what the intent was when written. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on who the militia is, and that membership in an organized state or national militia is not a prerequisite for exercising of second amendment rights. Well regulated, at the time of writing, meant organized, supplied, and in proper working order. It’s intent was not to be saddled with rules and restrictions. Verbiage does change over time, and the SCOTUS has also upheld 2A as an individual right, not as a collective right. 

[John Bull]

15 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

 

From CBS News

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 74 minors died from accidental discharges of firearms in 2014, the latest year for which comparable data are available. The AP and USA TODAY analysis counted 113 for that year, suggesting the federal government missed a third of the cases.

 

 

 

edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/23/more-than-26000-children-and-teens-have-been-killed-in-gun-violence-since-1999/?ut

 

www.cbsnews.com/news/accidental-gun-deaths-shooting-children-undercounted-cdc-ap-usa-today/

 

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-gun-massacre-america-isnt-talking-about/news-story/2ce3d693d182cb31ca7dbab186b2564c

 

/injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XK4SYDBKipo

 

JB 

 

 

[sft429]

5 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/23/more-than-26000-children-and-teens-have-been-killed-in-gun-violence-since-1999/?ut

 

www.cbsnews.com/news/accidental-gun-deaths-shooting-children-undercounted-cdc-ap-usa-today/

 

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/the-gun-massacre-america-isnt-talking-about/news-story/2ce3d693d182cb31ca7dbab186b2564c

 

/injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XK4SYDBKipo

 

JB 

 

 

 

I'm sorry.  I thought that when you said       "The 5000+ kids injured and 1000+ kids killed annually in shooting accidents...." you actually were talking about accidents.  How silly of me.  

 

[John Bull]

2 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

I'm sorry.  I thought that when you said       "The 5000+ kids injured and 1000+ kids killed annually in shooting accidents...." you actually were talking about accidents.  How silly of me.  

 

 

Try reading all the links.

For instance the bit that says   

From 1999 to 2016, 184 infants under the age of 1 died from a gunshot wound, as did 223 1-year-olds and 294 2-year-olds. All told, 1,678 children age 5 and under died of gunshot wounds from 1999 to 2016, according to the CDC data.

And that's just the under 5's. If they weren't accidental then America would be a very sick place.

 

JB 

[navybankerteacher]

24 minutes ago, A2Mich said:

 

Yet, you yourself are ignoring what the founders called a well regulated militia. The Federalist Papers clearly explain what the intent was when written. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on who the militia is, and that membership in an organized state or national militia is not a prerequisite for exercising of second amendment rights. Well regulated, at the time of writing, meant organized, supplied, and in proper working order. It’s intent was not to be saddled with rules and restrictions. Verbiage does change over time, and the SCOTUS has also upheld 2A as an individual right, not as a collective right. 

And you are ignoring the many local (state and/or municipal) restrictions on the ownership of firearms/types of firearms which  have been in place for decades.

 

Do you REALLY believe that “regulated” means only “organized, supplied and in proper working order”  but NOT subject to reasonable rules?   There is no dictionary which would support that selective a definition

[sft429]

3 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

Try reading all the links.

For instance the bit that says   

From 1999 to 2016, 184 infants under the age of 1 died from a gunshot wound, as did 223 1-year-olds and 294 2-year-olds. All told, 1,678 children age 5 and under died of gunshot wounds from 1999 to 2016, according to the CDC data.

And that's just the under 5's. If they weren't accidental then America would be a very sick place.

 

JB 

 

Again, you seem to be having a very hard time grasping the difference between accidental and all firearm deaths.  You originally claimed a certain number of accidental deaths.  That was your statement, not mine.  Now you just want to lump them all in together.

 

Where does your little snippet above contradict anything I've said?  

[A2Mich]

20 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

And you are ignoring the many local (state and/or municipal) restrictions on the ownership of firearms/types of firearms which  have been in place for decades.

 

Do you REALLY believe that “regulated” means only “organized, supplied and in proper working order”  but NOT subject to reasonable rules?   There is no dictionary which would support that selective a definition

 

Do you really have that much faith in lawmakers that all laws are just and constitutional?

[John Bull]

29 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

Try reading all the links.

For instance the bit that says   

From 1999 to 2016, 184 infants under the age of 1 died from a gunshot wound, as did 223 1-year-olds and 294 2-year-olds. All told, 1,678 children age 5 and under died of gunshot wounds from 1999 to 2016, according to the CDC data.

And that's just the under 5's. If they weren't accidental then America would be a very sick place.

 

JB 

 

11 minutes ago, sft429 said:

Again, you seem to be having a very hard time grasping the difference between accidental and all firearm deaths.  

 

So you're saying those infant deaths weren't accidental ????????????????

 

I give up

 

JB 

[sft429]

9 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

 

So you're saying those infant deaths weren't accidental ????????????????

 

I give up

 

JB 

 

No infants are ever murdered in England?

You should give up....

 

2017 Deaths ages 1-4

2017 Deaths 5-9

2017 10-14

 

 

I don't care how you add that up it sure doesn't come close to 1000

Edited April 10, 2019 by sft429

[John Bull]

21 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

No infants are ever murdered in England?

You should give up....

 

2017 Deaths ages 1-4

2017 Deaths 5-9

2017 10-14

 

 

I don't care how you add that up it sure doesn't come close to 1000

 

 

I'm truly shocked & saddened by those figures. 

3/4 of under 10-year-olds' deaths by shooting were intentional, not accidental.

If I were American that's something I'd find deeply embarrassing.

 

I'm struggling to find figures for firearm deaths in the UK - despite specifying UK, google keeps directing me to US figures.

But a total of 38 people last year.

I doubt that a single one was an infant, either accidentally or intentionally - it would make national headlines.

 

I'll dig deeper and get back later.

 

JB 

 

 

 

[sft429]

4 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

 

I'm truly shocked & saddened by those figures. 

3/4 of under 10-year-olds' deaths by shooting were intentional, not accidental.

If I were American that's something I'd find deeply embarrassing.

 

I'm struggling to find figures for firearm deaths in the UK - despite specifying UK, google keeps directing me to US figures.

But a total of 38 people last year.

I doubt that a single one was an infant, either accidentally or intentionally - it would make national headlines.

 

I'll dig deeper and get back later.

 

JB 

 

 

 

 

You seemed shocked that any child's murder would be by firearm.  I asked if there were no murders of children in England. What difference does it make how they were murdered?  Is one method of killing children more civilized than another?

[dkjretired]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

And you are ignoring the many local (state and/or municipal) restrictions on the ownership of firearms/types of firearms which  have been in place for decades.

 

Do you REALLY believe that “regulated” means only “organized, supplied and in proper working order”  but NOT subject to reasonable rules?   There is no dictionary which would support that selective a definition

 

As a previous poster stated the problem with the laws and proposed laws is they go after the law abiding system. In all my years in law enforcement never met someone who committed a crime with a gun who was worried that the gun was registered.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, A2Mich said:

 

Do you really have that much faith in lawmakers that all laws are just and constitutional?

Of course not - and I have to ask if you have such faith in people around you that you are comfortable with letting everyone  possess weapons which have no discernible purpose other than killing people —- not saying that such weapons can or should be legislated out of existence  — simply saying that there is good reason to want to know that those people who get their hands on such weapons have sufficient maturity, sanity and self control to be presumed to handle them responsibly.

 

Wanting gun control is not wanting to ban guns, it is wanting to keep those unable/unwilling to use them responsibly from having unlimited access to them.

[A2Mich]

26 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Of course not - and I have to ask if you have such faith in people around you that you are comfortable with letting everyone  possess weapons which have no discernible purpose other than killing people —- not saying that such weapons can or should be legislated out of existence  — simply saying that there is good reason to want to know that those people who get their hands on such weapons have sufficient maturity, sanity and self control to be presumed to handle them responsibly.

 

Wanting gun control is not wanting to ban guns, it is wanting to keep those unable/unwilling to use them responsibly from having unlimited access to them.

Do I have faith in everyone?  No, but I’m not naive enough to think that criminals aren’t going to get their hands on guns. I’d also rather take my chances with my right to be armed, rather than.being a defenseless victim. I live in a modest neighborhood that just so happens to be heavily armed. Most of my neighbors are either LEO’s or military/retired military. I have no concerns, as we all have each other’s back. I also understand that you can pass all of the feel good laws that you want, but it’s not going to change anything. Vast majority of homicides are committed by known criminals, who, ironically, don’t fill out their 4473’s and wait for their 3-10 day waiting period (if applicable).  Most criminals are either buying stolen firearms, trading drugs for stolen firearms, or stealing them themselves. Besides, as their title implies, criminals are in the business of committing crimes, regardless of what the law states. How about instead of imposing yet more restrictions on law abiding citizens, maybe we could strengthen existing laws and actually punishing criminals by eliminating early release, early parole, plea deals, etc?  But no, there is a certain segment of society who seem content to protect and coddle criminals while attempting to make innocent people defenseless victims. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by A2Mich

[A2Mich]

BTW, wanting gun control is not wanting to ban guns?  LOL.  Keep telling yourself that, as several politicians, including a few presidential wanna-bes have already admitted that is their end goal.  Which, is not surprising in the least.  An armed populace is much harder to control and oppress than an unarmed one.

[John Bull]

5 hours ago, sft429 said:

 

You seemed shocked that any child's murder would be by firearm.  I asked if there were no murders of children in England. What difference does it make how they were murdered?  Is one method of killing children more civilized than another?

 

Yes, I was shocked that any child's murder would be by firearm and I suspect most Brits, even most Europeans, would be too. That shows the huge differences in the acceptability of a firearm culture on the opposite sides of the Pond.

 

Couldn't find any reference to any child murders by gun in the UK, but I can't guarantee there isn't one in the figures below.  

Yes,  of course there have been child murders - one very recently in national news, murdered by her mother.

But child murders in the USA are about 8x higher than in the UK. 

And most of Europe has the same figures as the UK.

 

Numbers (and per 100,000 of population).

Most figures for 2016

 

All homicides

USA 17,250 (5.63 per 100k)                             UK   791 (1.20 per 100k)

 

Homicides by gun 

USA 14,415  (4.32 per 100k)                            UK    21 (0.0003 per 100k) 

 

Homicides of minors (under 16 yrs)

USA  1,494 (0.46 per 100k of                           UK    54  (0.08 per 100k)

                     total population)

 

Homicides of minors by gun (in 2008)

USA  1,865  (0.57 per 100k of                          UK     None found.

                       total population)

 

e&oe

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/chapter2homicide

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/20/health/child-gun-deaths-rising/index.html

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_murder

 

JB 

[sft429]

1 hour ago, John Bull said:

---nothing---

 

 

Ya know, this all started when you (falsely) claimed there were 1000 + accidental deaths by firearm of children per year in the US.  So, evidently, you subscribe to the "baffle 'em with bullshit" method of debate...

Edited April 11, 2019 by sft429

[John Bull]

21 hours ago, sft429 said:

 

No infants are ever murdered in England?

 

12 hours ago, sft429 said:

 

Ya know, this all started when you (falsely) claimed there were 1000 + accidental deaths by firearm of children per year in the US.  So, evidently, you subscribe to the "baffle 'em with bullshit" method of debate...

 

 

Not trying to baffle you at all - you moved the debate to child murders, and child murders in the UK,  and I provided you with the answers and worthwhile comparisons - which took a lot of time, bearing in mind that statistics vary by the year they refer to, by age etc..

 

On the matter of children accidentally killed by guns, I couldn't find my original source for those in the USA (I'd had to hunt tho dozens of websites for all the statistics) and I couldn't find one incidence of the accidental shooting of a child in the UK, almost-certainly because there weren't any. So I didn't include them on that list.

 

So now you've made me search more deeply to trace those sources.

And it's my bad - the total number of children killed by guns and the number of child homicides were in text form, not tabulated, so I subtracted the homicides from the total to get that number of accidental deaths.  I now see further down the text that a massive 1200 of them were classed as suicides - and that skews the figures very significantly. A more accurate number of accidental deaths of minors by shooting is closer to 150 rather than 1000+.    

I unreservedly apologise for my human error, but it certainly wasn't deliberate.

 

Nonetheless that's 150 accidental child deaths per year due to the US gun culture, and 150 parents who''ll not get over the grief that their carelessness killed their child.  

And the suicide rates amongst children is frightening. 1,000+ in the US by shooting alone, compared to about 150 in total in the UK. I don't know whether easy access to weapons is a factor, but it wouldn't surprise me because it facilitates a spur-of-the-moment decision to end their lives. 

 

You clearly want to maintain your rights under that 1791 Amendment, but deep down you must surely be aware that it's the cause of a great deal of suffering and death.

 

And now I'm done.

This time for good.

The thread has become both boring and antagonistic, and ain't going to change anyone's mind.

 

JB 

[buchhalm]

Such an American problem!

[Sancho_proudfoot]

I am with JB's parting comment. This has got too antagonistic, and as he said, no-one is going to change their views. We Brits cannot understand  the American love affair with firearms, and some Americans don't understand why Brits don't  get their attachment to their guns.

Let's just leave  it - and please no passenger guns on cruise ships!

[sft429]

3 hours ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

I am with JB's parting comment. This has got too antagonistic, and as he said, no-one is going to change their views. We Brits cannot understand  the American love affair with firearms, and some Americans don't understand why Brits don't  get their attachment to their guns.

Let's just leave  it - and please no passenger guns on cruise ships!

 

And it's not the love of guns for most.  It's our opinion that neither you, nor our politicians, have any right to tell us we can't own them.  Those who would trade a little freedom for a little safety deserve neither.

 

I said this 3 days ago in post #41.

 

On 4/9/2019 at 7:31 AM, sft429 said:

 

I can do this all day.....  But nobody is going to change their mind and the thread will degenerate quickly.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by sft429
added

[Aquahound]

On 4/9/2019 at 4:20 AM, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Thank goodness

 

On 4/8/2019 at 1:29 AM, Host Grandma Cruising said:

As a non American I am amazed at this whole topic! In the UK no-one would even think about having a gun in a suitcase!

 

On 4/9/2019 at 6:15 AM, Host Grandma Cruising said:

How many years are you going back - I’m in my 70s and can’t remember anyone in the UK having guns without a very tight registration system, having to keep guns under lock & key.

 

As a CC Host, you should be ashamed at fueling a political debate and allowing this thread to go off topic in this manner.  

[angie7911922]

On 4/1/2019 at 2:37 PM, Philob said:

Must be declared to the check-in agent.  They may or may not ask you to open your bag to verify that your weapon is cleared and ammo property packed.  They may or may not put a neon colored "FIREARM" (aka: Steal This Bag) sticker on the outside of your case.😒

 

BYW: It is illegal to bring in any type of ammunition into California and (eff 7/1/19) for a non-resident to purchase ammo within the state

 

 

So, I can bring my gun, just not my ammo? and assuming I want to go hunting I can't buy ammo? That's just weird 😂

[Philob]

1 hour ago, angie7911922 said:

So, I can bring my gun, just not my ammo? and assuming I want to go hunting I can't buy ammo? That's just weird 😂

Effective 7/1/19 CA residents must pay an extra fee and go through a back ground check by the ammo dealer for each visit when purchasing ammo.  If the resident is "not in the system" then they pay another fee and have to wait a week(?) for clearance.  Non-residents are SOL.

 

The CA legislature originally intended to allowed 50 rounds for hunting, but a voter approved proposition over ruled it.  Basically any non-resident must "borrow" whatever they need from their hunting companions.  I don't know how this affects competitive target shooters who shoots hundreds of rounds.

 

Of course all this is working through the courts. 

Edited April 15, 2019 by Philob