I want to create a large private city in middle america that can outright ban guns.

So, no real answer, as always.

 

The Kinderguardians program!!!!!

 

You said who is "we" and I answered it.

 

From January through June of 2017 there were 3 shootings on K-12 school grounds where someone was injured or killed. That's with 130,000 schools in session for 90 days during that period. One was a domestic violence incident in the workplace; the other two had a single person injured in each incident. "Guns going off" is a play to make it sound like death and violence reigned.

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

"According to the NHTSA, from 1998 to 2008, 118 people were killed riding school transportation while 267 people were killed as pedestrians when struck by a school bus or other school vehicle or were killed by a non-school vehicle while on school property (Table 5, 200. Over the 11-year period of the data, that is an average of 11 people killed in school transportation vehicles and an average of 24 killed as pedestrians. Using these averages to calculate for the years from 2009- 2012 gives us an estimated number of 525 people killed when riding school transportation or as pedestrians struck by school transportation or by other vehicles on school property during 1998-2012. When adding the non-occupants and occupants of other vehicles killed in school transportation-related incidents, the total number is 1,564, with an average of 142 people killed per year from 1998-2008. Using this average, an estimated total of 568 fatalities caused by school transportation-related can be extrapolated from this data for the years 2009 to 2012 (142 x 4 = 56. This gives an estimated total of 2,132 people killed in all types of school-related transportation incidents (1,564 + 568 = 2,132)."

https://safehavensinternational.org...elative_Risks_of_Death_in_US_K-12_Schools.pdf

 

Such a proposal would never pass constitutional muster. Even if by some chance such would actually come to pass, to implement such a form of liability for one particular piece of private property would subsequently necessitate it being applied to all privately owned property.

Mass shootings in the united states are not constant. They are rare, isolated incidents, and are responsible for the fewest number of deaths overall out of any firearm-related incidents.

What does the second amendment have to do with firearms possession by convicted criminals and other prohibited individuals, who cannot, under any circumstances, legally possess or acquire firearms?

Except for the fact that they were. The city of Chicago and the district of columbia has each been regarded as the murder capital of the united states, even when their total handgun prohibitions were in place and enforced.

Even if such were the case, how did these local-level ordinances prevent firearms from being trafficked into the cities, and utilized by those who could not legally possess them? Explain how such actually occurred.

 

Present the citation that demonstrates such to be the case.

 

Meaning that it is not actually possible for yourself to explain what the criteria being referred to is. Instead of defending the position on the part of yourself, you are instead demanding others go and do your work for you.

 

The difference is that its a deadly weapon, being negligent and allowing someone to steal your weapon should get you at least charged with negligent homicide, since if you never had one in the first place someone would not die. It should be on YOU to keep YOUR gun out of bad persons hands, if you can't you should never be allowed to have one.

That since police think anyone could be armed they are more likely to shoot people for mistaken movements then not. Simply stated police don't kill civilians at anywhere near our rate in the rest of the free world.

If congress would pass a no guns across state lines and city borders then the problem would be solved but they wont because they don't care.

 

I can't figure out where the "t" went.

 

As are motor vehicles if they are improperly utilized. The nation of France learned this the hard way, as did the united states.

First, how exactly does one actually go about allowing themselves to be the victim of a crime?

Second, the number of individuals murdered through the use of implements that are not firearms completely undermines the narrative being presented on the part of yourself.

Then why should such a standard apply to all privately owned property? Why should not a person be responsible for whatever crimes their property might be involved in, even if it has been stolen from them?

Such is because law enforcement officers in the rest of the world are held by much higher standards of conduct and review than law enforcement officers in the united states. A united states law enforcement officer would never be allowed to serve in a similar capacity in any other nation due to their abysmal conduct levels.

How exactly would such a firearm-related restriction actually be enforced? Explain the mechanics behind such.

 

Cars serve a different perpose then just killing so it's different

Not keeping your gun secure and we'll hidden. 10K out of 17K homicides are by gun.

Unless the main use of said property is to kill then it's not a problem if stolen.

I agree but pro gunners are mostly voting with the anti police reform party.

Forcing guns to be marked by state and city. Then giving each gun a number that is tracked and can be placed back to the last legal seller

 

If someone steals your Le Car, gets drunk and runs a loaded school bus over a cliff, are you in any way legally or morally responsible?
No?
There you go.

Unsupportable nonsense.

But, Congress won't because Congressmen want to keep their jobs, and the 2nd Amendment prevents such idiocy.

 

And yet motor vehicles are capable of killing hundreds, if not thousands of people in a single instance, if they are utilized for such purposes. It does not matter if their intended purpose is transportation, when the transportation operation can easily be shifted into mass murder if the one operating it is so inclined to engage in such behavior. It is no different than firearms, therefore the same standard of liability should apply to motor vehicles, and any other privately owned property.

If the residence in which the firearms are stored is already secured against unauthorized access, how can the legal owner be held liable if the firearms are stolen in an act of unauthorized access? For that matter, why should the legal owner be held liable if the firearms are stolen in an act of unauthorized access? Why is the legal owner regarded as being at fault, but not the person that actually misused the firearm for illegal purposes?

And yet the very existence of the private property apparently motivated, and even facilitated, the commission of a crime. So how is the standard different? Why is the standard different?

Show the citations of such.

Such as the already-mandated serial numbers all firearms come with at the time of their production, allowing them to be traced back to the manufacturer, the federally licensed firearms dealer they were sold to, and the last known legal purchaser of the firearm?

Such does not provide an answer to the presented question, nor does it even attempt to do such. How would the firearm-related restriction being proposed by yourself, physically prevent someone from crossing into one state or city, obtaining a firearm through whatever means, and then physically crossing back into the state or city they came from? What are the mechanics that physically prevent such an act from being committed? How is the act prevented from occurring?

 

Why middle America? Wouldn't your project have a better chance of survival in an area with higher percentage of people who have liberal utopia world views?

For instance oregan or Washington. You have an oceanic border that makes it easier to enclose your community. Nearby cities are not 2nd amendment friendly and you'd have support for your project. Large liberal companies like Google might locate there excited about this new project.

 

I need space lol. Middle america is empty. But if I could find a say dozens of miles maybe 100 with no one living or built there I would go for it. Also the 9th circuit would protect us.

 

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article219869925.html

 

Unconstitutional! Clown needs to go.

 

What's unconstitutional about it?

 

H

He is imposing conservative will on the most liberal court district that all voted against him.

 

Op, many before you have tried this but not just with guns. Not one example I can think of has succeeded.

Can we address the irrational negatives to this idea of yours?

 

You don't understand the Constitution.

 

What are the negatives? Was this country not built on the idea of self government and small central government?

 

No joke I hope this constitution actually fails and the US is forced to throw it out or fall just like the articles of confederation.

The US is trash and Trump might do one good thing, end this God awful experiment.

 

Still wondering where the "t" went.

 

More comments from the "patriotic" left.