Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
r_squared wrote: If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
It's not his place to do so.
It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.
The NRA have neutered him.
If I wished to harm Americans, I would consider the NRA an effective ally. Not only because of the loss of life caused by the ideology they support, but because they effectively polarise antipathy against the President of the US. Causing and accentuating division aids their goals.
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences
That's the big dividing line with American's vs the UK in general in regards to stuff like this. The US is fundamentally willing to accept greater risk in exchange for greater freedoms. This goes pretty much across the board, even setting guns aside, when it comes to things like freedom of speech for example, you can say things in the US that would get you a prison sentence in the UK.
and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
They might also be saved in defensive gun uses. Either way, we're arguing "what if's" really in that sort of context, and in reality, despite being tragic, the number of deaths we're talking about are statistically basically negligible, particularly next to the resource investment of what a handgun ban & confiscation program would entail vs putting said resources to other uses (such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social services).
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.
Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.
Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.
About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.
Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.
As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.
Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.
Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.
Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
There's also the very real chance of American children, as well as American adults, will live because a firearm was effectively used in self defense. Of course it is tragic when these shootings happen, nobody would argue otherwise, but despite what you see on the news there are many lives saved because of a civilian with a firearm.
r_squared wrote: If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
It's not his place to do so.
It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.
And why should he bring about change? Again, it's not his place. The executive branch =/= the legislative branch. Despite our POTUS claiming that "most" Americans want change, "most" Americans have elected into office a Congress that reflects their will to NOT have further restriction upon firearm ownership, and it is in their hands that change rests, not the hands of the POTUS.
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.
As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.
I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?
Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
The president can't take away our right to own firearms because of the separation of powers and federalism. The president isn't an absolute monarch, his ability to change US law is strictly limited. The NRA gets far more credit than its due. We have centuries of private gun ownership, local, state and federal laws that enshrine our right to own firearms backed up by established legal precedence, tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms. The NRA has about 4.8 million members but that's only around 5% of US gun owners. The NRA benefits from the fact that gun ownership is already widespread and enjoys strong legal protection. Anti gun people use the NRA as a scapegoat to avoid addressing the fact that a significant portion of US citizens want to own guns and have the right to do so and those truths would still be self evident and a nigh insurmountable roadblock to gun bans even if the NRA disappeared tomorrow.
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.
Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.
Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.
Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.
And you didn't have many guns in the general population to begin with. That's like a country with only 50 cars and 1 car crash a year banning cars and then citing that banning cars has reduced the number of automobile accidents to 0. Sure, it might be true but you didn't really accomplish anything by it.
You cannot compare any other country to the US and expect the same results. All banning guns would do is ensure law abiding citizens don't have any AND ensure that only criminals do. It wouldn't magically remove the guns off the street, and criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. So nothing would actually get solved.
You'll note that the US cities with the highest gun violence are also the ones with the most restrictive gun laws.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
There's also the very real chance of American children, as well as American adults, will live because a firearm was effectively used in self defense. Of course it is tragic when these shootings happen, nobody would argue otherwise, but despite what you see on the news there are many lives saved because of a civilian with a firearm.
r_squared wrote: If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
It's not his place to do so.
It might not be his place, but it is a reflection of the fact that with his enormous power, influence and resources, he cannot bring about any meaningful change in an area responsible for more American deaths than any foreign terrorist organisation.
And why should he bring about change? Again, it's not his place. The executive branch =/= the legislative branch. Despite our POTUS claiming that "most" Americans want change, "most" Americans have elected into office a Congress that reflects their will to NOT have further restriction upon firearm ownership, and it is in their hands that change rests, not the hands of the POTUS.
I would have thought he should bring about change because people voted for him to do exactly that.
I'm also not sure that I'm convinced that the answer to firearms is more firearms, but as the US currently has a significant number of readily available weapons, and there is no desire, or strength of will to change that, perhaps teachers should be armed. It may actually help.
Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.
As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.
I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?
Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
In the UK, if you make a facebook post about how much you hate X, Y or Z people, and how awful they are, how they deserve bad things, etc, you can be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison time or fines. In the US, you can do this all day long and the police aren't going to come knocking.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
You're appealing to emotion here rather than trying to make a logical argument, and that's how we end up with lots of silly gun laws that don't do anything. Yes, it's sad and tragic when children, or most anyone dies a senseless death. However, even if we assume firearms save no children's lives and that defensive gun uses aren't something that exists, again, society has relatively limited resources, and the number of children's lives saved by removing handguns would certainly be dwarfed by orders of magnitude by putting those resources to other uses (again, like healthcare, social services, education, etc).
One must also keep in mind that the US is a much larger place than the UK, with a far higher level of firearms ownership and a whole lot more guns in general, making a confiscation effort (even discounting resistance from segments of the populace and even law enforcement) a completely different story than what it was for the UK.
The UK also doesn't have quite the same realities that the US does. The only UK equivalent to the US-Mexico border (where someone living on the border has a not unrealistic chance of a violent encounter with people smugglers) really is Northern Ireland, which also happens to still allow handgun ownership and carry licenses.
I would have thought he should bring about change because people voted for him to do exactly that.
That was certainly his campaign slogan, but our ballots do not require us to give a reason why we are voting for a particular candidate, so that will have to remain a mystery.
r_squared wrote: Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons.
To my knowledge there are precisely zero schools in the country that require teachers to carry weapons. There are many that offer that option to teachers, and many more that employ liason officers, but no requirements.
Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.
Are there schools where teachers have to carry weapons in the US?
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
People don't tend to use legally acquired guns to shoot other people with.
Plus shootings and violent crime in general are on a meteoric decline, which indicates any problem we might have is getting better.
Its also demonstrably clear that there is no causal link between shootings and increased gun ownership.
Banning legally acquired handguns in the UK lead to a meteoric decline in the amount of spree killings that we suffer.
And you didn't have many guns in the general population to begin with. That's like a country with only 50 cars and 1 car crash a year banning cars and then citing that banning cars has reduced the number of automobile accidents to 0. Sure, it might be true but you didn't really accomplish anything by it.
You cannot compare any other country to the US and expect the same results. All banning guns would do is ensure law abiding citizens don't have any AND ensure that only criminals do. It wouldn't magically remove the guns off the street, and criminals aren't going to turn in their guns. So nothing would actually get solved.
You'll note that the US cities with the highest gun violence are also the ones with the most restrictive gun laws.
I'm not going to re-cover cars vs guns, that was dealt with quite eloquently earlier in the thread as I remember.
I do agree that America is far too steeped In gun culture for any ban to be effective. In fact, youre probably right in that any change would be ineffective. It would take a massive sea change in attitude throughout the population, and tbh I doubt that will ever happen. I genuinely thought that Sandy Hook could have been your Dunblane, but all it seemed to do was tighten the grips on the stocks.
TBH, it's not my problem, and again, as long as the population of your country is happy with the situation, then that's upto you, and fine with me.
Personally I'd prefer it that people just came out and said they liked, and enjoyed using guns rather than trying to justify their ownership.
Personally, I enjoy my time on the range, there's something very satisfying about a tight grouping.
Personally, I would be depressed and appalled if I had to take my children to a school where their teachers had to carry weapons. In fact I would be inclined to home school them, it would seem to be a lot safer.
Are there schools where teachers have to carry weapons in the US?
Please give a reference for that.
I can't, I was just commenting on a reply earlier that eluded to more firearms being used to combat the proliferation of firearms. I'm sure the NRA, and many pro gun lobbyists have stated that they would like to see school teachers armed. I could be wrong, but that was my distinct impression.
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
As I recall there was a high profile case of someone's racist posts on Facebook getting them arrested in the UK a few years ago.
As for "statistically negligible" atrocities. Something being statistically negligible doesn't make any less horrible, but it should absolutely hold sway when we are talking about making policies. Especially when those policies are trampling on Constitutional rights of 322 million people.
I don't remember that myself, perhaps it made the news, so it should be easy for you to provide a link. Is racism a non-prosecuteable offense in the US then?
Statistically speaking, a Facebook comment a couple of years ago also seems pretty "negligible".
We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
You don't have hate speech laws in the US, but you have hate crime legislation, is there a difference?
We also take the free speech bestowed upon us by the Magna Cart pretty seriously, so I'm not sure what you're implying?
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
In the UK, if you make a facebook post about how much you hate X, Y or Z people, and how awful they are, how they deserve bad things, etc, you can be charged with a crime and sentenced to prison time or fines. In the US, you can do this all day long and the police aren't going to come knocking.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
You're appealing to emotion here rather than trying to make a logical argument, and that's how we end up with lots of silly gun laws that don't do anything. Yes, it's sad and tragic when children, or most anyone dies a senseless death. However, even if we assume firearms save no children's lives and that defensive gun uses aren't something that exists, again, society has relatively limited resources, and the number of children's lives saved by removing handguns would certainly be dwarfed by orders of magnitude by putting those resources to other uses (again, like healthcare, social services, education, etc).
One must also keep in mind that the US is a much larger place than the UK, with a far higher level of firearms ownership and a whole lot more guns in general, making a confiscation effort (even discounting resistance from segments of the populace and even law enforcement) a completely different story than what it was for the UK.
The UK also doesn't have quite the same realities that the US does. The only UK equivalent to the US-Mexico border (where someone living on the border has a not unrealistic chance of a violent encounter with people smugglers) really is Northern Ireland, which also happens to still allow handgun ownership and carry licenses.
So, in order to make logical argument to satisfy you, we must avoid discussing anything that is distressing? How would you propose that any argument against guns be made?
I'm happy to agree that the US is very different and the circumstances are also different, and that any change that you wished to make would have considerable obstacles. That is for you to decide upon, I pointed out that the UK had fundemental shift in public opinion, and that galvanised the population to ban handguns.
It was extremely fortunate that at the time that handgun ownership reflected a tiny proportion of the overall population, and that we did not have a culture supportive of private ownership, rather one that just tolerated it. It was significantly easier for us to ban and enforce handguns than it would ever be for the US. In fact I doubt it would even be possible for you to do so, without a significant change in attitude, from within.
You don't have hate speech laws in the US, but you have hate crime legislation, is there a difference?
We also take the free speech bestowed upon us by the Magna Cart pretty seriously, so I'm not sure what you're implying?
With regards to hate speech laws vs hate crime laws, with a "hate crime" in the US, you actually have done something to someone for there to have been a crime, not just said bad things.
The difference fundamentally is that in the UK, it's possible to be arrested and convicted for saying bad/mean/etc things about a group of people under "Hate Speech" laws, while in the US, "Hate Crime" laws only come into play if someone, for instance, goes out and physically beats someone, and typically functions as a sentence enhancement mechanism to an already existing crime (e.g. battery) rather than a crime unto itself.
So, in order to make logical argument to satisfy you, we must avoid discussing anything that is distressing? How would you propose that any argument against guns be made?
No...but when the argument is basically "it's so sad", without looking at the greater realities of how many people are actually affected, or the resource investment that would be required, the argument falls flat.
Lets look at the Sandy Hook example. Yes it was tragic. Yes it was sad. Yes it was awful. However, is this a daily occurrence? No. Was this easily preventable? Short of confiscating all guns, if someone is willing to kill an immediate family member and then steal their weapons to go on a rampage, probably not. Was the number of dead large enough that the resources invested in preventing another such tragedy via mass confiscation wouldn't be better spent on almost anything else to net a greater total life saving value? No.
I'm happy to agree that the US is very different and the circumstances are also different, and that any change that you wished to make would have considerable obstacles. That is for you to decide upon, I pointed out that the UK had fundemental shift in public opinion, and that galvanised the population to ban handguns.
It was extremely fortunate that at the time that handgun ownership reflected a tiny proportion of the overall population, and that we did not have a culture supportive of private ownership, rather one that just tolerated it. It was significantly easier for us to ban and enforce handguns than it would ever be for the US. In fact I doubt it would even be possible for you to do so, without a significant change in attitude, from within.
And that's exactly what it boils down to. For the UK, there were vastly different social attitudes, far fewer guns in general, and that made the cost-benefit of doing such a thing far more realistic.
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
You were saying that the women of cologne wouldn't agree with that guy on his opinion that they would understand why they might want to have a gun about them for personal security, - but there was at least one woman who does agree.
You say 'obsession' like it's a bad thing? I think taking a rifle, a box of rounds and a few paper targets to an outdoor range gives a great sense of freedom. You can't take that away without making those people seriously consider what they pleged alleigance to every day at school.
'Better control' of firearms may be more about better recognition of mental illness; our NHS service has systems to diagnose and log these issues which will automatically disallow you from getting a firearms licence; the private hospital system in the usa allows some peole suffering mental health issues to go undiagnosed (maybe they can't afford to get diagnosed, or don't want to get diagnosed) and are then free to buy
Grey Templar wrote: So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
As a quick side note, the frequently cited idea that most firearms deaths occur with illegally obtained firearms stems from a pair of studies that are (in my opinion) really, really badly flawed - one doesn't have enough data, and the other makes some pretty sweeping assumptions. I don't think it's reasonable to cite either - they both had bad methodology.
I would definitely concede the majority of homicides likely occur with illegally obtained firearms, but I don't think we can say the vast majority of shooting deaths - which if we're being honest, should include suicides - are. I don't think we know that percentage.
This is one of the reasons I think the funding ban on the CDC studying gun violence is bad policy.
Grey Templar wrote: So what about the fact that the vast majority of shootings in the US are committed with weapons that were acquired illegally?
As a quick side note, the frequently cited idea that most firearms deaths occur with illegally obtained firearms stems from a pair of studies that are (in my opinion) really, really badly flawed - one doesn't have enough data, and the other makes some pretty sweeping assumptions. I don't think it's reasonable to cite either - they both had bad methodology.
I would definitely concede the majority of homicides likely occur with illegally obtained firearms, but I don't think we can say the vast majority of shooting deaths - which if we're being honest, should include suicides - are. I don't think we know that percentage.
This is one of the reasons I think the funding ban on the CDC studying gun violence is bad policy.
Fair enough. I suppose I should have clarified that I meant homicides.
Suicides and accidental deaths aren't important in this discussion, those are entirely unrelated problems to gun violence.
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.
Regardless, you won't be prosecuted for saying racist things on Twitter in this country. Because it's not illegal.
That depends on what one's exact words are. The First Amendment also offers zero protections against recriminatory actions by other private groups or individuals. So, for example, if you post a racist rant on your Twitter, your boss can fire you, and you have no legal grounds for a wrongful termination suit.
As to arming teachers, there's a few states that have taken that step:
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.
Regardless, you won't be prosecuted for saying racist things on Twitter in this country. Because it's not illegal.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. This UK citizen was arrested and imprisoned in the US because of a website he created that supported the taliban. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35774163
It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.
It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.
Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
You were saying that the women of cologne wouldn't agree with that guy on his opinion that they would understand why they might want to have a gun about them for personal security, - but there was at least one woman who does agree.
You say 'obsession' like it's a bad thing? I think taking a rifle, a box of rounds and a few paper targets to an outdoor range gives a great sense of freedom. You can't take that away without making those people seriously consider what they pleged alleigance to every day at school.
'Better control' of firearms may be more about better recognition of mental illness; our NHS service has systems to diagnose and log these issues which will automatically disallow you from getting a firearms licence; the private hospital system in the usa allows some peole suffering mental health issues to go undiagnosed (maybe they can't afford to get diagnosed, or don't want to get diagnosed) and are then free to buy
Absolutely. Mental health issues, and disaffection are what cause most mass killings, they just choose readily available firearms as their tools.
The overwhelming majority of what he proposes is to address all sorts of different issues without imposing yet more restrictions on guns themselves. However there is resistance to almost every single proposal in the wide ranging effort to prevent deaths.
The problem about the sense of freedom that many would feel using a rifle or shotgun, is that it extends to weaponry that was created with the intention to be used in a military or law enforcement capacity.
In many countries people are able to manage and purchase firearms legally to indulge in sports, or for pest control and those weapons are designed with that in mind so it is unlikely that Americans would ever lose access to firearms altogether. However, there is enormous reluctance to legislate against any particular type of weapon like a handgun, as they are enormously popular, and enable people to feel safer.
Until Americans no longer feel threatened by those around them and the fear of attack, coupled with the desire to take ownership of their own personal safety which some feel unable to do without a firearm, that is unlikely to change.
It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.
Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.
Because his apparent right to say whatever he likes on a US server has resulted in him being imprisoned by the authorities. You don't have to be racist to be a complete chod, and say things that others hate.
r_squared wrote: Many people said something similar in the UK until Dunblane, and then we, as a nation decided to act and banned handguns.
I feel we made the right decision. I believe that handguns do not belong in the hands of ordinary citizens. I gladly sacrifice my "inherent right" to own a handgun to prevent another nut job getting easy access to perpetrate another atrocity.
If you defend that right then you must be prepared to accept the consequences, and the very real chance that American children will die because of your choices.
Your starting from a situation of ignorance of what happened. Dunblane was an excuse for a small group to force through a poorly thought out law based on a hysterical media. Dunblane did not happen because of somone owning hand guns, but because of fail is time and again by the police and child protection services. People warned the police time and again that Thomas Hamilton was a danger and should not have a FAC or be near children. From his family, the scouts, people in his gun club. The police failed to act. The laws have had little effect on gun crime and only served to restrict legal ownership. The U.K. does not have the culture around guns in the US that leads to the kind of neglect actions shown in the OP.
I remember Dunblane very clearly as it happens, I was adult at the time so I'm not sure what you believe my position of ignorance is?
Other failings lead to that tragedy I will grant you, but the fact that a dangerous individual was able to access firearms, and in particular handguns allowed him to commit that atrocity more easily.
I remember being surprised that handguns were subsequently banned, and reading how our olympic athletes could no longer train in the UK in any sport involving handguns, but in retrospect it doesn't not worry me in the slightest.
It's one more link in the chain that is broken which makes mass killings using firearms in the UK to be almost completely non-existent.
It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.
Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.
Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?
Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.
Nope, it does. Expressing racist or homophobic or other hateful opinions like "I hate x people; they're icky" is just expressing a personal opinion. Opinions are thoughts and thinking thoughts shouldn't be criminalizes and isn't in the US. Hate speech laws punish people for expressing "bad" opinions which is the same thing as saying that those people are thinking the wrong thoughts and that everyone needs to only think thoughts that are allowed by the government.
Hate crime laws in the US just give harsher sentencing guidelines to people who have been found guilty of committing crimes. For example if you assault somebody that's a crime and you'll be prosecuted for it. If the investigation finds evidence that the perpetrator chose the victim because of their race or sexual orientation etc and has a history of racism or homophobia etc then the assault charge can be amended to a hate crime which carries harsher sentences. The crime is still the action but the hate allows for more severe sentencing on the premise that such demonstrable motivating hatred makes the criminal a greater threat to society than a criminal that doesn't desire to commit crimes against a whole group of citizens. Hate crime legislation was controversial when it was proposed and its passage was contentious. There is ongoing debate of the benefit of hate crime legislation and if their existences is divisive and superfluous.
It appears that because he created a website, he became a terrorist in the eyes of US law. As a UK citizen, the right to free speech in US law may not apply to him.
Sure, right to free speech applies. And that case has nothing at all to do with racism, so I'm not sure how it's got anything to do with what I said.
Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?
Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?
Making a website that expresses an opinion is not illegal unless that website crosses a line and its content is not passive but actively AIDS and abets a criminal or terrorist organization. I can tweet or post or make a website that expresses an opinion that the Taliban is awesome and not be charged with a crime. If I make a website that promotes the Taliban and helps them recruit new members or anything else that benefits them that would constitute criminal behavior.
Making racism illegal is bad because racist opinions are still just opinions/thoughts and the the government doesn't have the moral or legal authority to tell people what they can and can't think and no way to enforce such laws if they passed them. Laws against racism are still laws against actions, actions that are deemed to be motivated by racism, but even racism laws can't punish somebody for being a racist until that person acts on their racism.
Well he didn't actually commit any terrorism, he just talked about it. Surely by your standards on talking about racism, he should be protected by the first amendment?
Also, when did making racism illegal become a bad thing?
No. Providing material support to terrorists is just as illegal in the UK, incidentally. Regardless, the statement made was that it's not illegal to say racist things on Twitter over here; bringing up a case that has nothing at all to do with racism seems an odd refutation to that. Are there restrictions on speech in the US? Sure, some. Fewer than in the UK? Yes.
As for when making racism illegal became a bad thing, I'm tempted to say Rotherham. Racism itself is vile, sure. Making people terrified of being labeled racist for fear of prosecution has a chilling effect on speech.
Ok that's definitely enough of the first amendment discussion. It's not relevant. If you want to talk about which country thought crimes harder, then make another thread.
r_squared wrote: About your claim that you can say things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK, can you give an example? As you're in the US, I'm sure you'll be quite safe.
I also share the aversion that other people have given to "statistically negligible" atrocities. If you can make that statement to the face of someone who has suffered that loss, then you are a far braver, and thicker skinned man than I am.
r_squared wrote: Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
POTUS is not a fething king, and many of us are thankful for that. It isn't, and never should be, the federal government's place to bring lawful organizations 'to heel'. Honestly, the belief it should be disgusts me.
Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?
It's due to the will of the people much more so than the NRA. When Hillary Clinton was critical of Bernie Sanders voting record on gun control legislation proposals Bernie's defense was that as a senator from Vermont he had to vote in accordance to the views of his constituency. Gun ownership in Vermont is common and their state laws are fairly permissive with gun ownership. The people of Vermont like owning guns so Bernie has to vote accordingly, nobody thinks that the NRA bought Bernies votes because they didn't because they didn't need to.
Al Gore is a similar example. Look at the positions he took while campaigning for congress in Tennessee; he was a blue dog Democrat. Contrast that to his campaign positions while running for president after being Clinton's VP for 8 years and it's not surprising that he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.
There are a lot of states with lots of gun owners who want to keep their guns and they all get equal representation in the senate. That is a stronger obstacle to draconian federal firearm laws than the NRA will ever be.
Deadshot wrote: How is anything I said there different to what I said I said?
You mean other than when you started out saying that the child could not disengage the safety, and then shifted the goalposts to the child being unable to work the slide?
r_squared wrote: Kind of laborious to try and make a point, and not even a very good one. Any competent and trained individual can make a weapon ready in seconds. The only time anyone should realistically expect to have a weapon ready to fire from the safety, is in a state of high threat level.
If you're going shopping with a toddler and you have to have a firearm in that condition, then you are either in some futuristic nightmare dystopia like mega city one, or apparently any urban or extra urban area of the United States.
No, it makes the point quite well. I see you did not discuss the difficulties inherent in making a firearm ready when operating a motor vehicle, and with children
r_squared wrote: Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
Why would he bring the NRA to heel? Are they doing something illegal?
r_squared wrote: If I wished to harm Americans, I would consider the NRA an effective ally. Not only because of the loss of life caused by the ideology they support, but because they effectively polarise antipathy against the President of the US. Causing and accentuating division aids their goals.
I almost wonder if you know what the purpose of the NRA is
r_squared wrote: Are you comfortable with the fact that an unelected special interest lobby group is able to curtail the powers of an elected representative then?
If you honestly believe that then you are really limiting the possabilities for rational discussion. As a related point, if you believe that "an unelected special interest lobby group" comprised of US citizens who are concerned with protecting a fundamental right enshrined in US law and believe that these people have no place in the US political system (and thus removing their First Amendment rights) then do you believe that anyone outside the US should want to share their thoughts and opinions on our laws?
BTW popular support for stricter gun control (as in the opinions of citizens of the US, not special interest groups) is at an all time low.
r_squared wrote: Personally I'd prefer it that people just came out and said they liked, and enjoyed using guns rather than trying to justify their ownership.
What makes you think that we can't, and haven't, been doing both?
r_squared wrote: TBH, it's not my problem, and again, as long as the population of your country is happy with the situation, then that's upto you, and fine with me.
Wonderful, thank you for your time and sharing your opinions with us.
I think this whole subject is a strange thing for us who live in counties where being able to carry a weapon in a holster or able to transport in your vehicle other than going to the gun club.
I can understand the idea that some people feel that more guns are better so that the average citizen can respond to a deadly threat in society = spontaneous militia.
I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.
Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?
In the end, the kid getting hold of the gun is no different than getting hold of a sharp knife: they can hurt themselves, hurt you and it is far easier keeping it away from them than trying to take it from them!
I should not quite say "no different" little harder to avoid a bullet.
(Had this happen where my toddler had fished a steak-knife out of the dish-washer and was "chewing on it" and when I tried to get it away, he started waving it around... locks put on washer next day and luckily no wounds to treat.)
Talizvar wrote: I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.
Any evidence to back up your feelings here? If not you are just engaging in unhelpful speculation based on misconceptions of those who are gunowners
Talizvar wrote: Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?
Absolutely. You know, except for the federal laws that prohibit the ownership if firearms by the "crazy" or "criminal". And while correlation does not equal causation the fact that gun ownership has been growing as violent crime has been diminishing should give you some indication that this assumption is incorrect.
Well, this has been a whirlwind of discussion about stuff that we don't have here. I'm not going to touch it with a stick.
While she got shot, I'm glad that's what happened (and she survived) and not the alternative, where the child shot themselves with the gun she left with them.
Talizvar wrote: I just cannot shake the feeling that just like how narcissists are drawn to politics, people who like the whole power thing with guns are drawn to them.
There is this feeling that the people who are tempted to use the weapon less appropriately would outnumber those who would.
Any evidence to back up your feelings here? If not you are just engaging in unhelpful speculation based on misconceptions of those who are gunowners
Talizvar wrote: Would not the ease of access for the more crazy/criminal elements to guns outweigh the benefit for the citizenry to access them for defense and leisure based collecting or target practice?
Absolutely. You know, except for the federal laws that prohibit the ownership if firearms by the "crazy" or "criminal". And while correlation does not equal causation the fact that gun ownership has been growing as violent crime has been diminishing should give you some indication that this assumption is incorrect.
Ah yes, you now wish to point out there are laws to prohibit the crazy or criminal from ownership... which is a select few of that group have been proven to be so.
This open letter is particularly interesting: http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/05/an-open-letter-to-gun-owners/ I would look a bit into that link on "The trade-offs of gun ownership." and see that the statistics are not so rosy on keeping crime down based on gun ownership, it is rather the opposite in fact.
But hey, it has become something of a cultural mindset and identity of sorts where: "I'll give you my gun when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands."
Which in turn, makes it perfectly acceptable to accept these risks of accidents happening since a gun is to be treated like any other tool like a knife or nail gun.
Completely safe when properly used...
Gun sales have been increasing, but gun ownership has been decreasing. In other words, more guns are being bought by fewer people.
How this correlates to crime reduction I don't know. A person can only use one or two guns at the same time, and it doesn't seem likely to help them reduce crime more if they have six guns rather than two..
Of course, by the more guns = less crime measurement, all the other countries like Japan, the UK and France, etc. should be seething cauldrons of vioence and murder, but they aren't. This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.
Kilkrazy wrote: Gun sales have been increasing, but gun ownership has been decreasing. In other words, more guns are being bought by fewer people.
How this correlates to crime reduction I don't know. A person can only use one or two guns at the same time, and it doesn't seem likely to help them reduce crime more if they have six guns rather than two..
Of course, by the more guns = less crime measurement, all the other countries like Japan, the UK and France, etc. should be seething cauldrons of vioence and murder, but they aren't. This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.
You're misconstruing the facts and the argument. FBI stats show an increase in NICS checks over the past decade as more guns have been sold to private citizens, this increase in the number of guns owned by citizens has come during the same time period that FBI crime stats show a steady reduction in violent crime, including crimes committed with guns. Correlation is not causation but the fact remains that there is no evidence to support the claim that more guns equals more crime. Just like every time a state expands concealed carry there people that proclaim that it will lead to gunfights in the streets and other hyperbolic predictions of increased gun crimes but the fact remains that giving concealed carry permit holders that legal right to carry in more places hasn't led to any increase in gun crimes.
Guns are inanimate objects it's literally impossible for a gun to make somebody do anything. Whether a law abiding citizen owns one gun or dozens they do not become any more dangerous or more likely to commit crimes.
Prestor Jon wrote: We don't have thought crimes like hate speech laws in the US. We do have some gakky hate crime legislation but that really just amounts to putting harsher sentences onto pre existing criminal offenses. We take our first amendment rights pretty seriously here.
I don't think thoughtcrime means what you think it means.
Nope, it does. Expressing racist or homophobic or other hateful opinions like "I hate x people; they're icky" is just expressing a personal opinion. Opinions are thoughts and thinking thoughts shouldn't be criminalizes and isn't in the US. Hate speech laws punish people for expressing "bad" opinions which is the same thing as saying that those people are thinking the wrong thoughts and that everyone needs to only think thoughts that are allowed by the government.
Hate crime laws in the US just give harsher sentencing guidelines to people who have been found guilty of committing crimes. For example if you assault somebody that's a crime and you'll be prosecuted for it. If the investigation finds evidence that the perpetrator chose the victim because of their race or sexual orientation etc and has a history of racism or homophobia etc then the assault charge can be amended to a hate crime which carries harsher sentences. The crime is still the action but the hate allows for more severe sentencing on the premise that such demonstrable motivating hatred makes the criminal a greater threat to society than a criminal that doesn't desire to commit crimes against a whole group of citizens. Hate crime legislation was controversial when it was proposed and its passage was contentious. There is ongoing debate of the benefit of hate crime legislation and if their existences is divisive and superfluous.
That is not thoughtcrime. Thought crime is making those thoughts illegal, whether or not you express them, hence the name. Our laws say that people are perfectly fine to be racist in their own heads, but what they are not allowed to do is to express those thoughts in a way which promotes violence against those they do not like.
I would look a bit into that link on "The trade-offs of gun ownership." and see that the statistics are not so rosy on keeping crime down based on gun ownership, it is rather the opposite in fact.
Which explains why Switzerland and Finland are crime ridden cesspools. Related, ironically is...
This would seem to suggest that guns are not the principle determinant of crime.
Yet this argument suddenly becomes irrelevant when its the anti-control side saying it....
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.
Doubtful as states with high gun ownership rates and high issuance rates of concealed carry permits don't have high levels of gun crime and municipalities that have very strict gun control laws have very high incidence rates of gun crime.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
Compared to the incentive of going to jail, i'd say it's not the strongest deterent to crime.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.
Are there statistics of firearms legally purchased from private citizens used in crimes? I am curious about that, since it seems to be such a sticking point for some folks.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.
Are there statistics of firearms legally purchased from private citizens used in crimes? I am curious about that, since it seems to be such a sticking point for some folks.
Irrelevant really, since it has nothing to do with the argument that gun collectors have to maintain the ability to pass background checks in order to buy new guns.
Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.
We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.
Only if they do the sale face to face and even then state laws would need to be followed. For instance regardless of whether a pistol is purchased from a dealer or an individual here in NC the buyer must have a current concealed carry permit or a pistol purchase permit to legally make the purchase and both require a clean criminal background.
Additionally all out of state purchases would have to be mailed through a FFL, which could still be a private citizen if that person had an 03 FFL and the gun was C&R eligible but the 03 FFL also requires that the licensee maintain a clean criminal record.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.
We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?
A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.
djones520 wrote: Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.
We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?
A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.
But a person who was not allowed to possess a firearm, who purchased a weapon through such a means, would still be in illegal possession of said firearm, and it would still be illegally obtained, from the buyers POV.
That is the whole point of the loop hole argument isn't it? To prevent people who aren't allowed to possess firearms from purchasing them without completing the check.
Kilkrazy wrote: Kimber's operating manuals are available online for full details of the safety features.
Having read those, I think the most likely scenario is that the woman loaded and cocked the gun, and let down the hammer on to a chambered round. The toddler knocked it off the seat, and the shock when it hit the floor cause the firing pin to strike the round in the chamber.
"Series II" Kimber pistols have an additional safety feature that locks the firing pin block until the grip safety has been correctly disengaged. Perhaps this was a Series I pistol.
I believe that Frazzled owns a Kimber and could give us more information on these points.
You summoned the Dark One?
All Kimber 1911 designs have a grips safety. They have two pistols now: a .380 and a baby 933 that may be different. What was pictured was definitely a 1911 frame.
She could have had it cocked and locked with the safety on, and the munchkin could have knocked that safety off. Kimbers have very clean triggers, typically in the 5lbish range. That sounds like a lot but a shaking hand can put one in the dirt (I've done it, ultra carry Kimbers with SD loads will make my hand shake after about ten rounds). OR the safety could have clicked off. That can easily happen and even with a good Galco holster it would occasionally occur. The big racegun safety they have is more amenable to it and its recommended you get a holster better designed for it.
Frankly it would be far more difficult for a toddler to cock that hammer back. Its relatively stiff and there's not much leverage. But NEVER PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT PAST A KID. Always assume it can be done and take steps.
She was an idiot and she paid for it. Thankfully no one died.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you think that a theroetical gun owner's propensity to commit gun crime goes down as he acquires more guns?
Legally purchasing more new guns would require that the theoretical gun collector continues to pass a background check at the time of each purchase. If you want to legally buy a gun in the future you'll need to maintain your clean criminal record so that acts as an incentive to abstain from criminal behavior.
As long as gun collectors buy from each other there is no such requirement though.
Its only wrong if a gun collector only wants to collect guns from private citizens willing to sell guns in face to face transactions without background checks and both buyer and seller are official residents of states that allow such transactions to be done. That creates a very narrow and specific subset of gun collectors.
djones520 wrote: Well I think it is relevant. A large amount of effort has been placed in closing the "gun-show loophole", and I think we should see if there really is any point in it.
We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those who possess the firearms illegally, more then 90% per various sources, so how many of those are firearms bought from someone who legally did not complete a background check?
A gun can be legally purchased without a NICS check and in such an instance wouldn't constitute an illegally obtained gun if it was used in a crime.
But a person who was not allowed to possess a firearm, who purchased a weapon through such a means, would still be in illegal possession of said firearm, and it would still be illegally obtained, from the buyers POV.
That is the whole point of the loop hole argument isn't it? To prevent people who aren't allowed to possess firearms from purchasing them without completing the check.
To my knowledge nobody tracks that data. The FBI could track such data if local and state law enforcement provided that data to them from every case of a crime involving a firearm but I don't think there is a current legal requirement that they file those reports with the FBI.
In general, tracking of firearms data has been abysmal even for supposedly highly regulated. Even if everyone decided tracking and registration for every firearm should br a thing, no organization thus far has proved particularly adept or competent at maintaining the data in any reasonable fashion. Be it the ATF's NFA refistry, the FBI's background check system, various state felony databases, state "assault weapon" registries, etc.
Breotan wrote: The irony is that I can buy a pistol face to face without a background check but I can't cross State lines to avoid sales tax on a pistol purchase.
Breotan wrote: The irony is that I can buy a pistol face to face without a background check but I can't cross State lines to avoid sales tax on a pistol purchase.
it's just like when e-filing for an NFA stamp...you have to pay even *before* they'll let you certify the information or submit the application.
Thats not even getting into the literal 4 month response time
I think it's important to distinguish between "gun crimes" and crimes committed with a gun. For example, buying or owning an unregistered gun would be a gun crime in the UK, as you can only legally hold a weapon on licence. However if you commit a murder, it's a murder whether you do it with a gun or a knife or poison, not a gun crime in itself.
With this in mind, it is entirely logical that the amount of gun crime would go up in areas with stricter gun laws. To draw an analogy, in Japan, foreigners are known to commit crimes at a higher rate than natives. But, if you deduct visa crimes, which cannot be committed by Japanese natives, then the crime rate of foreigners actually is lower than natives. In the same way, there is no gun crime in Somalia because there aren't any laws on guns.
It's also obvious that crimes committed with guns would increase if more guns are owwed.
My question is whether the overall crime rate has dropped because of more guns. This does not correlate with ownership of guns, which has been falling in the USA, apparently because fewer people are buying guns, but they are buying more guns each, so there are fewer households equipped with guns.
When you think about it, it's entirely possible that the crime rate has fallen for various reasons that are nothing to do with guns, and people have responded by reducing gun ownership overall.
One factor to keep in mind also is urbanization. More and more people live in large cities, as opposed to rural areas. Cities, particularly bigget ones, make it difficult to actually go out and engage in shooting activities, as you cant just shoot in your back yard, and shooting ranges or BLM land are often not conveniemt or in some cases are entirely absent, and the hoops to jumo through to obtain a firearm in many large cities make legally owning one increasingly difficult. NYC for example has a population of over 8 million, 25 million in the metro area including jersey city and the like, but owning a gun there requires a lot of time and effort and expense, and then there's almost nowhere to actually go shooting, thus making firearm ownership unappealing to many.
There is also the fact that urban areas will tend to have more crime in general, which will probably lead local government to want stricter control on guns. Rural areas might have more firearms per person, but less control because there is less crime, and many of the guns are used for farming.
Smacks wrote: There is also the fact that urban areas will tend to have more crime in general, which will probably lead local government to want stricter control on guns. Rural areas might have more firearms per person, but less control because there is less crime, and many of the guns are used for farming.
Yes, there is an extensive list of factors that hold much more influence over crime rates than gun ownership.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.
Doubtful as states with high gun ownership rates and high issuance rates of concealed carry permits don't have high levels of gun crime and municipalities that have very strict gun control laws have very high incidence rates of gun crime.
So, using that rational, how do you explain the incredibly low levels of gun crime in the UK, and other countries with very strict gun laws?
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.
Doubtful as states with high gun ownership rates and high issuance rates of concealed carry permits don't have high levels of gun crime and municipalities that have very strict gun control laws have very high incidence rates of gun crime.
So, using that rational, how do you explain the incredibly low levels of gun crime in the UK, and other countries with very strict gun laws?
Many they are contempt with other sorts of non gun flavored violence.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps the reason why gun crime is going down is fewer people owning them.
Doubtful as states with high gun ownership rates and high issuance rates of concealed carry permits don't have high levels of gun crime and municipalities that have very strict gun control laws have very high incidence rates of gun crime.
So, using that rational, how do you explain the incredibly low levels of gun crime in the UK, and other countries with very strict gun laws?
Countries that have taken away citizens's rights to arm themselves and have systematically removed guns from private ownership and all but eliminated the market for privately owned guns are going to have less gun crime because guns themselves are rare. No one is arguing that societies that are virtually gun free aren't going to have low incidence of crimes involving firearms. None of those conditions presently exists in the US nor will any of those conditions manifest here anytime in the foreseeable future. US municipalities can enact the most draconian gun laws imaginable and they won't eliminate gun crime because such laws don't deal with the societal reality that exists.
The US isn't going to have gun ownership rates or gun laws as seen in the UK or EU or other places because such things are currently literally impossible to achieve in a lawful manner and the kind of popular impetus required to change those laws doesn't exist at this time and if it did it is dubious in the extreme that the govt would be capable of removing the hundreds of millions of guns from private ownership.
OK, that makes more sense, that other sentence was confusing.
I don't believe that the absence of guns necessarily means that those crimes are committed by other weapons. How would you know, or even begin to establish a correlation. All we can reliably state is that in the UK there is significantly less gun crime as a percentage of population when compared to the US. I believe that you could attribute that to the lack of availability of firearms.
Clearly a European disarmament model will not work, and is inadvisable at the very least because of the proliferation and ready availability of weaponry, so what solution do you see to the high proportion of mass killings of your own citizens by your own citizens as compared to other nations of a similar standing to you?
Are mass killings an inevitable part of modern America, and must be endured as a consequence of upholding the second ammendment?
How would you prevent another Sandy Hook?
The thing is, I believe that even the UK will endure another Dunblane, or Sandy Hook in the future.
As long as the ability to kill using firearms exists, it is conceivable that it can happen anywhere, eventually. Laws and restrictions only mitigate so much.
However, are there nations that do not suffer mass killings? What do they do, or dont do, that equates to a reduced homicidal impulse in their citizens.
From Wikipedia's list of countries by firearm death rate. What makes Hong Kong, Japan, India, Azerbaijan, Poland and South Korea so safe?
All very different cultures, so why such incredibly low rates of firearms deaths? Those figures include suicides and lawful killings btw.
Is it something to do with western attitudes? Is our sense of entitlement a problem? Does that provoke an anger or resentment that explodes in violence, and the accessibility of weaponry allows us to do harm far beyond our own inherent physical capability?
r_squared wrote: The thing is, I believe that even the UK will endure another Dunblane, or Sandy Hook in the future.
As long as the ability to kill using firearms exists, it is conceivable that it can happen anywhere, eventually. Laws and restrictions only mitigate so much.
However, are there nations that do not suffer mass killings? What do they do, or dont do, that equates to a reduced homicidal impulse in their citizens.
From Wikipedia's list of countries by firearm death rate. What makes Hong Kong, Japan, India, Azerbaijan, Poland and South Korea so safe?
All very different cultures, so why such incredibly low rates of firearms deaths? Those figures include suicides and lawful killings btw.
The problem with just looking at firearms deaths means you miss the greater picture of violence in general. Japan has a very low homicide rate period, no matter what the instrument, doesn't matter if it's a gun or a knife or a pipe or bare fists, murder is simply much rarer. Meanwhile, while the US may have a much higher firearms murder rate than India, the total murder rate is almost identical, which means people are just using different methods.
A lot of this also boils down to socio-economic issues. Japan has an extremely uniform society where people just don't do certain things. In Japan, if a cop asks a random person on the street to look in their backpack, nobody is going to tell them "piss of bacon grease, get a warrant" they way they might in the US. Acceptable social norms and attitudes towards violence vary wildly. Likewise, even within the US, murder rates and firearms homicides vary wildly depending on where you are, with cities like Chicago having murder rates similar to say, South Sudan, while say, Seattle's homicide rate is close to Taiwan's, and even within cities this is often isolated to relatively small areas, though Taiwan had a mass stabbing attack on its subway a couple of year ago too.
r_squared wrote: Is it something to do with western attitudes? Is our sense of entitlement a problem? Does that provoke an anger or resentment that explodes in violence, and the accessibility of weaponry allows us to do harm far beyond our own inherent physical capability?
One underlining theory is that mass shootings, with exposure to social media and how fast information now travels, not only in accurate amounts but also spreads inaccurate information ultimately fuels them. It isn't necessarily so much western attitudes as it is that the threshold, when you apply riot theory has been reached for that environment. The threshold is already surpassed so they will continue to happen. The problem is everyone tries to look at each situation individually instead of the collective whole, that is why individually these acts don't make sense unless you apply the psychology of mob/riot mentality to them.
Riot and mob mentality says when a group of people has assembled because they're emotional and angry about something, it only takes one act of violence to whip the crowd into a fury. Others will follow the initial rioter's lead and begin destroying property or hurting people. A lot of research has been conducted into the mindset of a violent mob. Being part of a group can destroy people's inhibitions, making them do things they'd never otherwise do. They lose their individual values and principles and adopt the group's principles, which, during a riot, are usually to cause destruction and avoid detection. This standard can seem to be a just and righteous one, since the mobs assembled after an act of perceived inequality or unfairness, and the communal emotion can make the cause seem even more important. Being in the midst of a mob can be exciting and powerful, and it can make people feel invisible -- they are part of a huge group, and they won't be detected or held responsible for their actions.
While mobs are powerful and wreak intense havoc in a short period of time, they are hard to sustain. Though people feel intense allegiance to them for short periods of time, at heart, the connections between rioters are tenuous and temporary. That's why many riot control tactics employed by police rely on intimidation, rather than actual violence.
The main issue is that it is difficult to apply riot control tactics to these situations as the shooters tend to already be dead. Social media/internet lets them feel connected creating a group principles and emotions that didn't normally exist years ago. You'd read about it in the paper or maybe watched it on the news, there wasn't a feeling of being part of it. Now with social media, twitter, internet, everyone is connected with a push of a button instantly in a faceless anonymity that doesn't have any real visible consequences for ones actions.
So, effectively the answer is, we should all embrace and adopt Japanese culture and social norms to reduce murder rates.
Maybe I should pay a bit more attention to my daughter's interest in anime and manga.
Although I'm finding Attack on Titan both compelling and annoying at the same time tbh.
Are mass killings an inevitable part of modern America, and must be endured as a consequence of upholding the second ammendment?
Yes, yes they are. The odds of dying in an attack like Sandy Hook or San Bernadino or Virgina Tech or Aurora are infinitesimally small. If you drive a car, smoke, drink, eat any kind of processed food, have sex, walk in a public area, bike, hike, boat (you get my point) you are in way more danger than getting shot by a nut.
It is a price that we pay, and one I wish more Americans would just flat out admit. But it's still a tiny, tiny slice of the risk that is life we all play. I for one don't want to have the option taken away from me.
And really, a 4 out of 100K murder rate really isn't that much worse than a 2 out of 100k murder rate. Cut out poor, young male minorities killing over the most lucrative drug trade in the world and the US suddenly looks like the rest of the first world.
r_squared wrote: So, effectively the answer is, we should all embrace and adopt Japanese culture and social norms to reduce murder rates.
Hrm, it'd be pretty hard to replicate that. Japan also has huge issues with suicides, birth rates, etc and the Japanese justice system has a litany of issues as bad as the US's (though for different reasons). So yeah, while they've got far lower violent crime rates, they have different issues instead.
DutchWinsAll wrote: If you drive a car, smoke, drink, eat any kind of processed food, have sex, walk in a public area, bike, hike, boat (you get my point) you are in way more danger than getting shot by a nut.
The difference is, we constantly look for ways to mitigate risks with those things. If you look at driving, for example, safety has come a long way, even in the last 20 years. We have crumple zones, airbags, intelligent breaking, seatbelt warnings etc... We have also made changes to the roads (at least in the UK), we have more speed humps, speeding cameras, many cities have introduced bypasses, pedestrianised areas, one way systems, and improved crossings. That's not to mention the environmental improvements. I have no doubt that people will strive to keep improving driving to make it ever safer.
When it comes to guns however, there is a section of the population who will resist any change, regardless of what it is, because they perceive all change as a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Which is akin to drivers in the 1980 crying about having to wear their seatbelt, and spouting nonsense anecdotes about some guy being burned to death, trapped in his car by these seatbelt death-traps.
Firearm deaths might be expected, or statistically probable, but that never makes them "acceptable", which is something a lot of people here seem to not understand. There is no point where it's okay to say: "one school-shooting a year is acceptable collateral". As with cars, people need to be open to ways to make things safer. Instead of spouting paranoid nonsense straw-men like: "So what are you gunna do take our guns away? Why don't you just take cars away then?", without aknowladging that car safety is something that people do care about, and something that has been continually changing and improving.
DutchWinsAll wrote: If you drive a car, smoke, drink, eat any kind of processed food, have sex, walk in a public area, bike, hike, boat (you get my point) you are in way more danger than getting shot by a nut.
The difference is, we constantly look for ways to mitigate risks with those things. If you look at driving, for example, safety has come a long way, even in the last 20 years. We have crumple zones, airbags, intelligent breaking, seatbelt warnings etc... We have also made changes to the roads (at least in the UK), we have more speed humps, speeding cameras, many cities have introduced bypasses, pedestrianised areas, one way systems, and improved crossings. That's not to mention the environmental improvements. I have no doubt that people will strive to keep improving driving to make it ever safer.
When it comes to guns however, there is a section of the population who will resist any change, regardless of what it is, because they perceive all change as a slippery slope towards their guns being taken away. Which is akin to drivers in the 1980 crying about having to wear their seatbelt, and spouting nonsense anecdotes about some guy being burned to death, trapped in his car by these seatbelt death-traps.
Firearm deaths might be expected, or statistically probable, but that never makes them "acceptable", which is something a lot of people here seem to not understand. There is no point where it's okay to say: "one school-shooting a year is acceptable collateral". As with cars, people need to be open to ways to make things safer. Instead of spouting paranoid nonsense straw-men like: "So what are you gunna do take our guns away? Why don't you just take cars away then?", without aknowladging that car safety is something that people do care about, and something that has been continually changing and improving.
The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.
r_squared wrote: Is it something to do with western attitudes? Is our sense of entitlement a problem? Does that provoke an anger or resentment that explodes in violence, and the accessibility of weaponry allows us to do harm far beyond our own inherent physical capability?
One underlining theory is that mass shootings, with exposure to social media and how fast information now travels, not only in accurate amounts but also spreads inaccurate information ultimately fuels them. It isn't necessarily so much western attitudes as it is that the threshold, when you apply riot theory has been reached for that environment. The threshold is already surpassed so they will continue to happen. The problem is everyone tries to look at each situation individually instead of the collective whole, that is why individually these acts don't make sense unless you apply the psychology of mob/riot mentality to them.
Mob mentality works because of the impact of crowds when there is a short time frame for decision making. You can get a large crowd to clap by having a few strategically placed clappers placed among the audience, but you can't get someone to clap and expect that someone in another state will clap three months later. Trying to apply mob mentality to shooting events that occur months apart doesn't really work. And then there's the issue that you're explaining changes in Western culture, but spree killings are not uniform, most country have had one or none in the last few years, only one developed country has lots.
Really, the basic explanation is gun proliferation. If we take as an assumption the likelihood that every developed country has the same proportion of suicidal people, then we ask what would make a suicidal person more likely to commit the act? And we know that having a trigger, an object that triggers suicidal thoughts is a major driver of suicide. It can be a bottle of pills, or a daily drive by a steep cliff, anything that is likely to get a person back to thinking about suicide. And yeah, that means when there's a gun around, it's no surprise that suicide is way more likely.
And if we extend that out, and make the reasonable assumption that all developed countries have the same number of crazy and embittered people, well it isn't hard to see how having guns around might be more likely to trigger behaviour compared to when there is no gun around. Similarly for spur of the moment killings (by far the most common) - consider a heated family argument, one with a gun within a few paces walking distance and one without - which is more likely to end up with someone making a very stupid decision?
That doesn't mean that gun control is right, of course, just because something has a negative impact that doesn't mean you ban it. Having lots of alcohol readily available will mean lots more instances of drinking to dangerous levels, but that doesn't mean you should ban alcohol. But it is important to start with the basic point that proliferation leads to increased instances of negative consequences.
r_squared wrote: Is it something to do with western attitudes? Is our sense of entitlement a problem? Does that provoke an anger or resentment that explodes in violence, and the accessibility of weaponry allows us to do harm far beyond our own inherent physical capability?
One underlining theory is that mass shootings, with exposure to social media and how fast information now travels, not only in accurate amounts but also spreads inaccurate information ultimately fuels them. It isn't necessarily so much western attitudes as it is that the threshold, when you apply riot theory has been reached for that environment. The threshold is already surpassed so they will continue to happen. The problem is everyone tries to look at each situation individually instead of the collective whole, that is why individually these acts don't make sense unless you apply the psychology of mob/riot mentality to them.
Mob mentality works because of the impact of crowds when there is a short time frame for decision making. You can get a large crowd to clap by having a few strategically placed clappers placed among the audience, but you can't get someone to clap and expect that someone in another state will clap three months later. Trying to apply mob mentality to shooting events that occur months apart doesn't really work. And then there's the issue that you're explaining changes in Western culture, but spree killings are not uniform, most country have had one or none in the last few years, only one developed country has lots.
Really, the basic explanation is gun proliferation. If we take as an assumption the likelihood that every developed country has the same proportion of suicidal people, then we ask what would make a suicidal person more likely to commit the act? And we know that having a trigger, an object that triggers suicidal thoughts is a major driver of suicide. It can be a bottle of pills, or a daily drive by a steep cliff, anything that is likely to get a person back to thinking about suicide. And yeah, that means when there's a gun around, it's no surprise that suicide is way more likely.
And if we extend that out, and make the reasonable assumption that all developed countries have the same number of crazy and embittered people, well it isn't hard to see how having guns around might be more likely to trigger behaviour compared to when there is no gun around. Similarly for spur of the moment killings (by far the most common) - consider a heated family argument, one with a gun within a few paces walking distance and one without - which is more likely to end up with someone making a very stupid decision?
That doesn't mean that gun control is right, of course, just because something has a negative impact that doesn't mean you ban it. Having lots of alcohol readily available will mean lots more instances of drinking to dangerous levels, but that doesn't mean you should ban alcohol. But it is important to start with the basic point that proliferation leads to increased instances of negative consequences.
While true to a point, it should also be recognized that mass shootings of the Columbine or Sandy Hook style are a relatively recent phenomenon. There was a time when nobody would blink an eye at a student bringing a hunting rifle to school (my grandfather certainly never had any problems doing so in the 1920's), and such things didn't occur when you could mail order fully automatic machine guns to your door through the Sears catalog without NFA controls or needing to go through an FFL. It's a relatively recent phenomenon that coincides with the rise of certain types of media in many ways.
Because taking a concept and applying it to millions of law abiding Americans on the basis of the actions of three people is not only helpful, but scientifically sound....
So when someone is threatened and suffering pain at the hands of another their instinct is to defend themselves using the most efficient means to hand. You are trying to prove what exactly?
And yet time and time again we see nationally that increased firearm ownership, relaxed rules on the carrying of firearms does not increase violent crimes or confrontations.
So you are basing your opinions on law abiding gun owners based on bumper stickers, and juveniles (who are more likely than not prohibited from carrying firearms by law) who have been involved in gang activity. So that is less than worthless
Talizvar wrote: Which does happen to mention some 19,000 gun accidents.
Out of how many million firearms, across how many years? Statistically insignificant. Again
So your attempted an appeal to authority to perform a psychological character smear failed.
Talizvar wrote: All this helps paint the picture of why to feel attracted to guns and that is typically those who are aggressive, feeling impotent or powerless, you know, the more vulnerable elements of society who have some discipline issues.
Still waiting for evidence of this, because the facts and figures say you're wrong.
What did you find interesting? Other than the fact that it confirmed your biases and trotted out all the usual talking points?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: [So, using that rational, how do you explain the incredibly low levels of gun crime in the UK, and other countries with very strict gun laws?
Welcome back.
Quite simple; availability. And while gun crime might not be an issue other tools are used in crime instead. So the violence issue still exists, it has just been shifted to another area.
That's an interesting survey. It also highlights the urban rural divide with less than 15% of major city residents owning firearms and over 50% of rural residents owning firearms. Geographic differences are also evident, New England, the mid Atlantic (essentially the DC to Boston megaopolis) and the West Coast have a 24.5% ownership rate while the rest of the country has a 39.5% ownership rate. Given that the areas with the strictest control and lowest ownership rates have the most people it's no surprise that the national rate is down. I also noticed that the percentage of respondents choosing not to answer is at an all time high which mirrors an elevated level of distrust of government.
Yeah, you're going to get lots of people opting out of answering that ir simply telling the pollster "no" even if they do own firearms. I know I'd be hesitant to self identify like that. Thats said, I dont doubt the overall trend.
sebster wrote: Mob mentality works because of the impact of crowds when there is a short time frame for decision making. You can get a large crowd to clap by having a few strategically placed clappers placed among the audience, but you can't get someone to clap and expect that someone in another state will clap three months later.
That isn't entirely true, the time isn't a true factor nor is decision making because it isn't conscious part of the process. The trigger for a riot/mob depends on each persons individual thresholds. Everyone has certain thresholds that vary which determine what will motivate them into responding. Clapping for example is a different threshold than say throwing a rock at someone you hate.
To think that the internet can not create, have impact or cause a mob would be highly inaccurate. The Internet is a breeding ground for herd mentality. Not only is it easy for online users to find throngs of other individuals who share their brand of crazy, but it shields everyone under a cloak of anonymity, which gives people the freedom to let go of their social restraints.
Years ago before internet and social media for mass mob/riot mentality could only be generated through protesters and people congregating in an area amongst similar people with the same opinions and point of view. That crowd takes a certain amount 'pressure' before those thresholds reach critical mass. Years ago those types of gatherings would only be in a few hundred to even a thousand. Watching those events on the news or reading them in the papers wouldn't trigger future events because that emotional energy was dispelled. Also there isn't a social connecting by reading a paper or watching the news, unlike when you are instantly chatting with a "friend" on facebook where social connections are made.
For a test case if you apply the above to "Cecil the lion"; It would have taken weeks to build the "pressure", if any at all, to create the mass mob/mentality of prank calling, graffiti, property damage and death threats to not just threatening Palmer but his employees and place of business. It only took a few hours to days to breach the threshold causing thousands of outraged people rising up in a social media riot which broke thresholds creating situations of assault (rocks and other thrown things) at not just the dentist but anyone who was in the vicinity of it, people who weren't even involved. This outrage spread to people not even involved and only associated to regular working people under his employ creating a dangerous environment. Then you have the property damage, graphiti and other things all triggered through current trends from online.
That isn't the only example of such things. We see it all the time when large groups of people create sweeping changes, become judges and executioners of people who haven't been found guilty but only been accused of something. In normal mob/riots the reach of those people is only to a few hundred. Each of those people have different thresholds and triggers before they join into a traditional mob/riot. Social media and internet instead of reaching hundreds can reach a targeted millions instantly, triggering and meeting thresholds suddenly reaching critical mass at a faster rate than traditional methods.
Mass shootings isn't a person in a group of people, waiting for someone to clap. They are isolated individuals seeking a type of kinship. They find that social connection differently than those within a crowd (who would be waiting for someone to clap), these people connect differently. It is why a good portion of the profiles are quiet individuals, not necessarily shy but those that have felt they've been ignored or bullied. They all research other shootings, have a manifesto, take similar pictures posing in similar poses with guns among other similarities between them. These are how they found socially acceptance. Their thresholds and triggers are different than the normal crowd person. The threshold for mass shootings was met awhile ago, increases daily and we've reached this point of critical mass that we can never close Pandora's box again.
Increase in guns doesn't entirely correlate that it makes it the most likely to be the weapon of choice. Yes the largest portion of gun violence does happen to be suicide. Suicide is also different thing than mass shootings. If gun proliferation is the explanation then that would mean our suicide rate would be higher than any other country but it isn't, last I checked US wasn't even in the top 10.
sebster wrote: Similarly for spur of the moment killings (by far the most common) - consider a heated family argument, one with a gun within a few paces walking distance and one without - which is more likely to end up with someone making a very stupid decision?
It depends on the environment and by environment I mean country and background of those involved. An argument is a crime of passion that has different results than a premeditated crime.
Gallup relied upon a lot of self reporting so I would not be surprised if people with firearms in their home decided that it was not the business of some stranger cold calling them.
Also the NRA have 66% more requests to teach beginners, and record sales are being reported for ladies firearm accessories. So either more people are getting involved (especially ladies) or Bubba and his buddies now want flashbang bras, garter holsters, and pink camo.
Gallup relied upon a lot of self reporting so I would not be surprised if people with firearms in their home decided that it was not the business of some stranger cold calling them.
Also the NRA have 66% more requests to teach beginners, and record sales are being reported for ladies firearm accessories. So either more people are getting involved (especially ladies) or Bubba and his buddies now want flashbang bras, garter holsters, and pink camo.
The survey KillKrazy posted shows the gender gap regarding firearm ownership getting reduced almost in half over the years so that trend appears to be reflected in some degree of accuracy.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.
Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety. My grandfather, who was born in the 1920s, had both his young brothers killed by cars (within a few months of each other). It wasn't uncommon, there was even talk of banning automobiles when they first arrived, because of the number of deaths they caused. Regulation is what made cars safer, and allowed the technology the prosper and become an indispensable part of modern life.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.
Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety. My grandfather, who was born in the 1920s, had both his brothers killed by cars (within a few months of each other). It wasn't uncommon, there was even talk of banning automobiles when they first arrived, because of the number of deaths they caused. Regulation is what made cars safer, and allowed the technology the prosper and become an indispensable part of modern life.
Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before. Cars also =\= guns.
Vaktathi's point stands, guns are mechanically as safe as they can be currently. The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator. Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.
Prestor Jon wrote: Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.
That is only because there is a small amount of regulation at Federal level, mostly everything is done at a State level and ultimately that is a huge issue with how guns are regulated. The differences between regulations between states is more than it should be. I don't necessarily believe that regulation focused on just people is the full answer, it is more of a focus on people and how they obtain guns. I think there should be multiple levels of gun licenses much like vehicle drive licenses. My main issue is that it is harder to get a job these days than buy a gun, meaning there are credit checks, background checks, drug checks, references.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue is that guns are as mechanically safe as they can get, they really haven't changed much in the last 50-70 years in that regard. We're not talking the same kind of advances we saw in cars. Gun deaths generally aren't due to the gun being unable to withstand something or something failing on the gun itself as you'd get with a car, it's that they're operated inappropriately. The only real solution there then is regulation of users, and thus straight into the slippery slope.
Regulation isn't a slippery slope, cars have been continually regulated since their introduction, and they are still used and enjoyed by far more people (far more often) than guns are. Unless your idea of "freedom" is an unlicensed person tearing down a busy highstreet at 80mph knocking down school children, no one's freedom to drive has been "curtailed".
Thats not really any different than relaitively basic ordnances that have applied to firearms for decades, like discharging a firearm inappropriately inside city limits and the like. Thats not the kind of thing people have a problem with. Cars dont have "buy/no buy" checks in them, you cant be denied a car purchase because of a conviction (you can still own a car if you have a DUI for example...just cant drive it on public roads for a while) or a restraining order, and the lack of a license only precludes certain types of use rather than purchase (say, like in Illinois or NYC). You dont have to wait X number of days to take possession of a car after buying it the way you do with guns in many states. You dont need to file an extra tax with the govt and wait 4-6 months to transfer certain vehicles the way you do with certain firearms.
And, if the polls Killkrazy posted are accurate, then firearms ownership is declining, not growing. Going back to NYC, regulation has effectively made firearms ownership almost impossible to do legally.
More to the point, there's basically zero definitive data that firearms regulation of users really does anything to affect crime rates or homicide numbers.
Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.
In general, there's very little regulation of ownership of cars, as opposed to guns, while both of usage restrictions, regulation of the users themselves and designsting who can or cannot own a car is practically nonexistent.
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing. A pedestrian hit by a modern car or a 1930's sedan, probably won't feel much difference. It is regulation of users and highways that has improved safety.
there has been a massive amount of regulation and mechanical and electronic enhancement of automobiles in regards to their construction and reliability. Getting into a crash in a 1963 car vs a 2016 car makes a drastic difference in injury and fatality rates, you are way safer in the 2016 car. There has been a ton of design related regulation that simply does not translate to firearms.
Guns are different, their design has laregly plateaud over the last 60 or so years. We're seeing stuff come in a bit lighter, or with new optics, but the fundamental operating mechanisms are unchanged. A gunsmith from 1930 could pick up just about any gun today and figure it out in a few minutes. A car mechanic from 1990 would have no clue how to deal with most cars today due to the integration of electronics that just havent found any way to be meaningfully integrated into firearms.
Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before. Cars also =\= guns.
Vaktathi's point stands, guns are mechanically as safe as they can be currently. The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator. Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had. Increased gun regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.
It was regulation that made it illegal to manufacture cars without seatbelts.
Prestor Jon wrote: Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before.
As I already said, the risk to pedestrians from cars is largely the same as it ever was, yet pedestrians are much safer now than before regulation.
Which is exactly my point. If you follow the conversation, it was not me but someone arguing on behalf of gun rights, who brought up the comparison. Gun rights people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to make arguments about pros/cons and inherent risk in all things, and draw parallels. Yet when someone points out that other things are regulated to mitigate those risks, suddenly back to "guns =/= cars". Thank you for making my point for me.
Prestor Jon wrote: Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had.
20,000 in each state? Or are you multiplying similar and overlapping and expired laws, to be deliberately misleading?
Prestor Jon wrote: The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator.
Agreed.
Prestor Jon wrote: regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.
Again, that's my whole point. The 2nd amendment is a legal obstacle that prevents regulation (some types of regulation). My argument is that regulation is not a slippery slope, and can benefit everyone.
Vaktathi wrote: Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.
It is also easier to regulate cars because most cars have a unique ID that is tied typically to a driver/license and is tracked from owner to owner, etc. While some states don't require a firearm to be registered at all, it is the owners choice.
I don't believe the answer is no guns nor do I believe in taking guns away. I love guns. ^_^ I have grown up around them my whole life. However I that there are some laws that should change and help control who, what and at least identify who/what has them. I don't want to take them away, but I do think we need to adjust regulations to which help show "gun owner" = "lawful responsible gun owner". The fact that some states don't require registration for them or that I can get a concealed weapon permits in another state, without a class but that permit is recognized in other states is strange.
Because taking a concept and applying it to millions of law abiding Americans on the basis of the actions of three people is not only helpful, but scientifically sound....
So when someone is threatened and suffering pain at the hands of another their instinct is to defend themselves using the most efficient means to hand. You are trying to prove what exactly?
And yet time and time again we see nationally that increased firearm ownership, relaxed rules on the carrying of firearms does not increase violent crimes or confrontations.
So you are basing your opinions on law abiding gun owners based on bumper stickers, and juveniles (who are more likely than not prohibited from carrying firearms by law) who have been involved in gang activity. So that is less than worthless
Talizvar wrote: Which does happen to mention some 19,000 gun accidents.
Out of how many million firearms, across how many years? Statistically insignificant. Again
So your attempted an appeal to authority to perform a psychological character smear failed.
Talizvar wrote: All this helps paint the picture of why to feel attracted to guns and that is typically those who are aggressive, feeling impotent or powerless, you know, the more vulnerable elements of society who have some discipline issues.
Still waiting for evidence of this, because the facts and figures say you're wrong.
What did you find interesting? Other than the fact that it confirmed your biases and trotted out all the usual talking points?
All I can say is after taking the time to read your responses I can conclude you really did not read much of anything and missed the point... Ok.
Funny how you have to keep hammering home that "law abiding gun owners", yep, there are many of them like law abiding knife carriers, dog owners and your point is???
I could have sworn I made no statements slandering owners as criminals but sure.
The point of all this is exactly the point you made: people who "defend themselves using the most efficient means to hand".
The lethality and speed which it is employed ramps up violent escalation from 1 to 10.
No time for sober second thought but hey that is considered an asset by you because when you need to defend yourself: fractions of a second count.
You mention "statistics" often and seem quite willing to dismiss what I trotted out (which DID contain time periods and other parameters but I know... you were impatient) so please feel free to point to some that support your views as well, I am sure they are quite factual since no-one wants the government to know they own a gun and are not required to, so we fall back on firearm sales figures.
I am happy to back away from this argument since it borders on religious proportions.
I will even throw some statistics the other way just for fun:
If you are going to edit what I said, result to ad hominem, ignore my points, and strawman what I did say then you really are making an on going discussion difficult.
Okay, next time I will ensure it is all out of the quotes...
All I did was "Dreadclaw69 wrote" and added "Said stuff"... and put the spoiler on due to the wall of text we had going.
I know better for next time. Edit to retaliate... not my thing but thanks MOD for the note.
As to personal attacks? (ad hominem) Uh, no.
I cannot say I have been made angry or care enough to attack the person's character and am at a bit of a loss of how I had done so.
"Ignore my points." You got me on that one, since I started doing that when you ignored the contents of mine.
"Strawman" is arguing points that were not brought forward: I do not think I had done that and would hate to fabricate an imaginary discussion.
I guess if you throw enough out there, you figure you can make it stick.
I will take the hint from the MOD and let this lively discussion be. My first MOD warning! This is a fine example of group polarization.
Talizvar wrote: I will take the hint from the MOD and let this lively discussion be. My first MOD warning! This is a fine example of group polarization.
Or breaking Rule 1, but playing the victim is often more fun. As you are quitting the thread I don't see the need to enumerate in detail what you feign innocence over.
Pushing for the last word in that way is hardly polite, and hardly on topic. It is now dropped, and not being mentioned again unless you don't want to be posting for a while.
Prestor Jon wrote: Cars have undergone drastic changes. My parents owned cars that didn't even have seat belts for all occupants and now they all have multiple airbags. Cars are much safer now than ever before.
As I already said, the risk to pedestrians from cars is largely the same as it ever was, yet pedestrians are much safer now than before regulation.
Which is exactly my point. If you follow the conversation, it was not me but someone arguing on behalf of gun rights, who brought up the comparison. Gun rights people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to make arguments about pros/cons and inherent risk in all things, and draw parallels. Yet when someone points out that other things are regulated to mitigate those risks, suddenly back to "guns =/= cars". Thank you for making my point for me.
Prestor Jon wrote: Guns are already regulated by over 20,000 laws which is more regulation than cars have ever had.
20,000 in each state? Or are you multiplying similar and overlapping and expired laws, to be deliberately misleading?
Prestor Jon wrote: The most dangerous aspect of gun use is the operator.
Agreed.
Prestor Jon wrote: regulations are going to have to be focused on people not guns and there are several significant legal obstacles to that that aren't going away anytime soon.
Again, that's my whole point. The 2nd amendment is a legal obstacle that prevents regulation (some types of regulation). My argument is that regulation is not a slippery slope, and can benefit everyone.
I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.
The second amendment is not the only legal obstacle to gun control laws there are also state constitutions, state laws and Supreme Court rulings that all affirm the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.
It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.
That seems like an exceptionally stupid idea, especially when regular holsters exist.
Vaktathi wrote: Regulation also works much better for cars because, my their nature, they are inherently rather restricted in terms of operation in most instances, usually confined to a storage location and publicly owned and regulated roads, they arent something that can be carried on ones person and go anywhere peoole can.
It is also easier to regulate cars because most cars have a unique ID that is tied typically to a driver/license and is tracked from owner to owner, etc. While some states don't require a firearm to be registered at all, it is the owners choice.
I don't believe the answer is no guns nor do I believe in taking guns away. I love guns. ^_^ I have grown up around them my whole life. However I that there are some laws that should change and help control who, what and at least identify who/what has them. I don't want to take them away, but I do think we need to adjust regulations to which help show "gun owner" = "lawful responsible gun owner". The fact that some states don't require registration for them or that I can get a concealed weapon permits in another state, without a class but that permit is recognized in other states is strange.
Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.
States determine for themselves if they want to grant reciprocity for other states' concealed carry permits and which states they choose. It changes over time and for a variety of reasons. Carry permits are governed by the states so their 10th amendment rights give them control over them. Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.
Prestor Jon wrote: Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.
I highlighted the one issue with the statement. I also want to point out that all "law abiding citizens" are law abiding until which time they break the law. A good portion of those involved in mass shooting were law abiding, at least until they pulled the trigger and then they were no longer law abiding. Law abiding also doesn't equal "responsible" gun owners.
Prestor Jon wrote: Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed.
Part of the problem is most regulation is a state matter. I realize that they haven't required it. It is why I think to effectively implement any changes it would require to grandfather in a good portion. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen moving forward. Again everyone who has a clean record does so until they commit an illegal crime. Everyone who has ever committed an illegal crime was a legal citizen at one point. The main compelling reason though to register would be to properly link guns from buyers/owners to crimes and going over those owners that were irresponsible, sold their gun illegally, had it stolen but didn't report, careless neglect in storing them cause them to be stolen and in some case not even realizing it was gone because they had so many. It isn't so much about prevention as it is about tracking the sources more effectively.
Prestor Jon wrote: I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.
Firstly, you did mislead because there is no basis in reality for the 20,000 figure you regurgitated. Secondly, a car is a machine that is almost purpose built for making long journeys (such as across state lines), so it's hardly surprising that the law would facilitate that. Thirdly, you will still be subject to local laws, such as speed limits. An unscrupulous person could define each speed sign as a unique local regulation if they wanted (for example, if they wanted to arrive at a falsely inflated number like 20,000).
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars, but even if they were, the numbers would be bulked out with stupid things like "you can't shoot beer cans off a donkey's ass on St Patrick's day" in Deadend, Missouri. Back in the real word, cars have just as many rules that might disqualify people from driving them. They also require a licence and registration, which in practical terms makes them more regulated than guns.
Prestor Jon wrote: Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.
This shows an incredible lack of foresight. The idea of a registry is not to fix gun problems overnight, it's to keep track of guns once the original law abiding owner passes them on. It's an investment in the future.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.
How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?
Prestor Jon wrote: Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer has to pass a background check and have a clean criminal record proving themselves to be law abiding citizens. There is no way for somebody to have a criminal record and be able to buy a gun from a dealer so the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding citizens.
I highlighted the one issue with the statement. I also want to point out that all "law abiding citizens" are law abiding until which time they break the law. A good portion of those involved in mass shooting were law abiding, at least until they pulled the trigger and then they were no longer law abiding. Law abiding also doesn't equal "responsible" gun owners.
Prestor Jon wrote: Likewise any registration requirement would be strictly a state matter. Most states have never had registration so it's difficult to drum up support for one. Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed.
Part of the problem is most regulation is a state matter. I realize that they haven't required it. It is why I think to effectively implement any changes it would require to grandfather in a good portion. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen moving forward. Again everyone who has a clean record does so until they commit an illegal crime. Everyone who has ever committed an illegal crime was a legal citizen at one point. The main compelling reason though to register would be to properly link guns from buyers/owners to crimes and going over those owners that were irresponsible, sold their gun illegally, had it stolen but didn't report, careless neglect in storing them cause them to be stolen and in some case not even realizing it was gone because they had so many. It isn't so much about prevention as it is about tracking the sources more effectively.
Obviously everyone has a clean record until they get convicted of something. People with clean records can buy guns and keep them until such time as they commit a crime that disqualified their right to own them. That will always be true regardless of the existence of a registry. We don't have precognition everyone is innocent until proven guilty and gets the benefit of the doubt. Registration is not going to change the fact that the authorities can't take your guns away until after you give just cause for such action.
We already have storage laws, transport laws, laws that prohibit the selling of guns to disqualified people, laws that require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, laws against straw purchases and negligence and endangerment laws.
A registry won't solve the problem of a person not realizing a gun was stolen and consequently not reporting it.
There aren't many prosecutions of straw purchases and the reasons why it's a difficult crime to prosecute aren't resolved by a registry.
Smacks wrote: Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars
They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.
That's only true for buying guns. That's not necessarily the case for carrying or transporting them, which varies widely by state. And in some states it's definitely easier to buy a car.
Prestor Jon wrote: I didn't misconstrue or mislead, my statement is accurate. I can take my car that is legal to drive in my home state and drive it in any of the 50 states without needing to make any changes or adjustments to it or how I operate it. If I have my firearms in the car with me or on my person every time I cross state lines the legal restrictions on how I can carry and transport my firearms changes and any failure on my part to comply with the various laws that change state to state can result in criminal charges and serious lengthy prison sentences because guns are much more heavily regulated than cars.
Firstly, you did mislead because there is no basis in reality for the 20,000 figure you regurgitated. Secondly, a car is a machine that is almost purpose built for making long journeys (such as across state lines), so it's hardly surprising that the law would facilitate that. Thirdly, you will still be subject to local laws, such as speed limits. An unscrupulous person could define each speed sign as a unique local regulation if they wanted (for example, if they wanted to arrive at a falsely inflated number like 20,000).
Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars, but even if they were, the numbers would be bulked out with stupid things like "you can't shoot beer cans off a donkey's ass on St Patrick's day" in Deadend, Missouri. Back in the real word, cars have just as many rules that might disqualify people from driving them. They also require a licence and registration, which in practical terms makes them more regulated than guns.
Prestor Jon wrote: Since you need to have a clean record to buy them and to keep them there's no compelling reason to register them because such a registry wouldn't have an impact since law enforcement would only be able to confiscate firearms after a crime is committed. If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not and if you don't commit a crime you get to keep them and buy more whether they are registered or not. There doesn't seem to be a point to putting people on a government list just for the sake of having a list. I don't see the need for a list that does nothing for prevention and would only be useful after the fact.
This shows an incredible lack of foresight. The idea of a registry is not to fix gun problems overnight, it's to keep track of guns once the original law abiding owner passes them on. It's an investment in the future.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.
How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?
We already have laws governing the buying and selling, gifting and bequeathing of firearms. A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one and for much of our naion's history we had higher gun ownership rates with less restrictions than we have now.
The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.
Smacks wrote: Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars
They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.
ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car. I've purchased guns and cars but never had fill out anything like a 4473 to get a car and I wasn't facing a felony charge if my car buying paperwork was inaccurately filled out or if the sale was refused.
Grey Templar wrote: In CA I can walk onto any used car lot, buy a car, and drive it home that day.
I have to wait for several days to buy a gun.
It depends on the state on if you have to wait several days to buy a used gun. A person only has to wait in most instances if buying from a dealer, private sales are different and differ greatly from state to state. The average person I know however doesn't have thousands to walk in and buy a car. They do need to have a few things like a job, drivers license, insurance, income and credit check to get a loan and those things take time. The credit check and loan process itself is fairly short, only a couple hours if that but to accomplish that isn't that easy for everyone.
Prestor Jon wrote: People with clean records can buy guns and keep them until such time as they commit a crime
Not all crimes are equal nor disqualify someone from owning a gun. Again this is only if they buy from a dealer and varies from state to state. Registration isn't also about taking the guns away, it is a completly seperate purpose.
Prestor Jon wrote: We already have storage laws, transport laws, laws that prohibit the selling of guns to disqualified people, laws that require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, laws against straw purchases and negligence and endangerment laws.
That vary greatly from state to state, that is the main issue. It isn't even a simple matter of border states having similar laws, they are polar in some cases.
Prestor Jon wrote: There aren't many prosecutions of straw purchases and the reasons why it's a difficult crime to prosecute aren't resolved by a registry.
Registry again isn't for prosecuting someone who used a gun who committed a crime, unless they happened to purchase it legally. In most cases it should be used to enforce "responsible" gun owners into being responsible. Here is the thing, yes a dealer risks losing a license and that is why they follow the law. A private sale has no risks. Gun owner A can easily sell to Joe Smith without going through legal channels because there is no way to hold Gun Owner A accountable. Also this varies from State, as some states don't require a person to do a background check for a private sale.
Prestor Jon wrote: ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car.
My loan paperwork for the car purchase is larger than that form. Also still only have to fill that out if this was a Over-the-Counter sale. I can order parts for firearm without filling out any forms, and then assemble it. There are also various websites where you can buy them private sale, without filling out any forms. Since they aren't registered no one will really be able to trace fully where they came from. You can trace where they were essentially manufactured but not who owned, or how many hands it has changed. When I buy a used car, I can tell you if it has been in an accident, been repaired, how many owners has had it and even how many oil changes have been done on it.
Prestor Jon wrote: A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one and for much of our naion's history we had higher gun ownership rates with less restrictions than we have now.
So then that would infer that you don't believe there is a problem and that the current statistics are considered an accessible loss (which isn't a bad answer since we know we can't completely resolve or solve the issue of gun violence, it is just a matter of how much is considered acceptable). Since we've gotten along fine because absolutely nothing has changed in the world in our nations history, there is no reason to change. Does that mean the correct answer and response is to do nothing? Because doing nothing will absolutely change nothing.
Dark Severance wrote: So then that would infer that you don't believe there is a problem and that the current statistics are considered an accessible loss (which isn't a bad answer since we know we can't completely resolve or solve the issue of gun violence, it is just a matter of how much is considered acceptable). Since we've gotten along fine because absolutely nothing has changed in the world in our nations history, there is no reason to change. Does that mean the correct answer and response is to do nothing? Because doing nothing will absolutely change nothing.
If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.
How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?
The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.
Come on man, at least read your own posts, I've had more structured conversations with my dog.
You said: If you commit a crime you lose your guns. Since there is no logical connection between committing crimes and misplacing things, I assume that by "lost" you mean: someone in authority takes them away. I said: (after you commit a crime,) how do the authorities know what (and how many guns) you might have, if the guns aren't registered?
Smacks wrote: Lastly, I do not buy that guns are more heavily regulated than cars
They aren't more heavily regulated than cars. It is easier to buy a gun then it is to apply for a job, get a drivers license or even buy a car.
ATF form 4473 look it up and then show me equivalent form needed to buy a car. I've purchased guns and cars but never had fill out anything like a 4473 to get a car and I wasn't facing a felony charge if my car buying paperwork was inaccurately filled out or if the sale was refused.
Yes you can "buy" a car, in the same way I can "buy" a plot of land on the moon. To actually use it in a meaningful way, you need to pass the driving test.
I can go to a gun show and buy almost any weapon imaginable and walk off the lot with it that day, my background is irrelevant. I can buy guns off private citizens via Facebook, Craig's List, or any other number of social media and web forums. No muss, no fuss, no credit check, no background check, no waiting period.
No driving test is required to purchase a car. If you have a driver's license, that is usually sufficient. They don't care how many tickets you have or anything of the sort. If you wreck the car? That's not their problem, you still have to pay for it.
Dark Severance wrote: That isn't entirely true, the time isn't a true factor nor is decision making because it isn't conscious part of the process.
No, riots are immediate things. They don’t occur in bits and pieces over many months for reasons.
To think that the internet can not create, have impact or cause a mob would be highly inaccurate.
Of course it can be a factor, but to put it first and foremost as a primary factor would mean that every country with high levels of internet use would have high levels of spree killing. That obviously isn’t true, the rate of spree killing in the US, and the US rate of murder in general, is unique among developed countries. So while the internet might be a factor, it clearly isn’t anywhere near the major factor you’re putting it out to be.
Seriously dude, every developed country has crazies, and every one of those developed countries has the means to spread crazy from person to person. But they don't have the gun violence problem the US has. Because obvious reason.
Psienesis wrote: I can go to a gun show and buy almost any weapon imaginable and walk off the lot with it that day, my background is irrelevant. I can buy guns off private citizens via Facebook, Craig's List, or any other number of social media and web forums. No muss, no fuss, no credit check, no background check, no waiting period..
As a quick aside, Facebook has been shutting down gun trading groups, but it seems like a mixed initiative - I know a few that got shut down, and a bunch that stayed open. Not that it changes the point you were making.
Grey Templar wrote: If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.
It is acceptable if someone considers the current death and losses a "acceptable risk" to ensure that their rights aren't changed. That is a perfectly valid opinion... most people however won't just say that. I didn't say that I think it was acceptable or agree with it, however I do respect that people will have different opinions and points of views. I just wanted to know if he thinks there isn't an issue. If he does there is no point discussing anything else because there is no need to find a solution or talk about different ideas for changes as there is a belief there isn't an issue.
I have never said I'm taking anyone's rights away. Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.
I would have to disagree that tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all... that is a very broad statement.
sebster wrote: No, riots are immediate things. They don’t occur in bits and pieces over many months for reasons.
I've gone through a few legal definitions of riot and mob. I've also done various searches, checked the wiki, and other than one reference which defines one type of riot, "An immediate riot is unrest among a section of the population , nearly always in the wake of a violent episode of state coercion.". There is no correlation that a riot is an immediate thing. I've looked at the police studies of riots and the psychology reports on riots but I'm not seeing it. This tends to be a common misconception about mobs/riots though, one assumes that a right can be immediate because they are common at sports events or after a violent episode but those aren't all riots. As time changes new things happen that change the definition of "what" something is or "how" something is caused because there is more data to correlate those studies. There are quite a few different types of mobs and riots types and isn't limited to "immediate".
sebster wrote: Of course it can be a factor, but to put it first and foremost as a primary factor would mean that every country with high levels of internet use would have high levels of spree killing.
Are you implying that the US has high levels of killing sprees? It isn't just simply the internet, there are certain laws which is why I mention environment that factor into it. As an example there are still many countries where you can't speak out against the government, they don't have free speech like the US. All those factor into them to create a different environment.
sebster wrote: That obviously isn’t true, the rate of spree killing in the US, and the US rate of murder in general, is unique among developed countries. So while the internet might be a factor, it clearly isn’t anywhere near the major factor you’re putting it out to be.
I never said it was a major factor. I think you focused on one thing instead of understanding the whole social psychology behind what is being said. I wasn't specifically talking about murder in general. I was specifically talking about mass shootings and their increased rate, which is different than murder in general as well as suicides (which tend to account for the largest portion of gun violence). Crimes of passion and suicides obviously aren't effected by a riot/mob mentality, there is no manifesto, there aren't a few dozen photos of poses with the guns in classic poses of violent intent, there are records that they researched other shootings.
Just to relate back to the origial topic:
The shooting is being investigated as accidental. He said no charges have been filed yet but authorities will work with the State Attorney’s Office to determine if Gilt will be charged depending on how the investigation pans out as to how the boy obtained the weapon.
There was no criminal crime that happened. She is still considered law abiding citizen. Do you think that if she is charged that her guns will be taken away? Do you think that her being irresponsible, creating this incident is a valid reason to take her guns away? If they do take her guns away, how does anyone know how many she has or what to take away?
Keep in mind this was posted by her mother as a response:
“This was an accident and nothing more,” Gilt’s 71-year-old mother Jane Bramble told the London Sun.“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns. She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them. She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”
It is a holster that is attached to a bra, and I am not risking breaking forum rules by posting images. I am not super keen on them because drawing from them can cause you to muzzle sweep a very blood rich and organ dense part of the body.
Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/
Grey Templar wrote: If something is acceptable, its not a problem. And given that the numbers are steadily declining, and every ban and tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all, we can infer that doing nothing is the best course of action. Especially when its a constitutional right we are talking about.
It is acceptable if someone considers the current death and losses a "acceptable risk" to ensure that their rights aren't changed. That is a perfectly valid opinion... most people however won't just say that. I didn't say that I think it was acceptable or agree with it, however I do respect that people will have different opinions and points of views. I just wanted to know if he thinks there isn't an issue. If he does there is no point discussing anything else because there is no need to find a solution or talk about different ideas for changes as there is a belief there isn't an issue.
I have never said I'm taking anyone's rights away. Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.
I would have to disagree that tightened legislation hasn't had any effect on crime at all... that is a very broad statement.
The automatic gun ban did absolutely nothing. Crime committed with automatic weapons was for all practical purposes non-existent before the ban, and it was non-existent during the ban.
The bans on larger magazines will do nothing. Reloading doesn't take long at all, particularly if any sort of practice has been done. A guy with one 30 round mag will do just as much damage as a guy with three 10 round mags.
Proposed bans on "assault rifles"(whatever the hell that means) will do nothing. The vast majority of crimes are committed with pistols.
Registration or tightened legislation doesn't take anyone's right away.
Good thing the Constitution says "shall not be infringed" instead of "shall not be removed". Restrictions are by definition infringements. So yes, toughening legislation does in fact infringe on our rights.
“This was an accident and nothing more,” Gilt’s 71-year-old mother Jane Bramble told the London Sun.“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns. She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them. She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”
Wait, this woman has clearly demonstrated that she isn't responsible with guns, yet she is continuing to keep them? Where is personal responsibility?
Grey Templar wrote: The automatic gun ban did absolutely nothing. Crime committed with automatic weapons was for all practical purposes non-existent before the ban, and it was non-existent during the ban.
The bans on larger magazines will do nothing. Reloading doesn't take long at all, particularly if any sort of practice has been done. A guy with one 30 round mag will do just as much damage as a guy with three 10 round mags.
Proposed bans on "assault rifles"(whatever the hell that means) will do nothing. The vast majority of crimes are committed with pistols.
I think you are confusing tighten legislation with ban, they are not the same thing. I also never said that current legislation itself was correct response. At no point did I mention banning at all, at least I don't think I did.
I would need more information on mass shootings where they were larger magazines. It was my understanding that the majority of them were already with smaller maganzines and not a 30 magazine. If that is true then yes larger magazines don't really have an impact on it. Banning assault rifles also won't work because the definition of 'assault rifle' is incorrect in most cases and not properly defined. I also don't believe banning is an answer. I do believe the process of how we get a gun, who can have access to guns and that there should be different versions of licenses for guns and different types are needed. Better legislation and an accurate NICS database for better background checks are needed, currently not everything gets reported to it and it isn't very accurate in its current state.
Grey Templar wrote: Restrictions are by definition infringements. So yes, toughening legislation does in fact infringe on our rights.
The 2nd Amendment is actually an article added to the Constitution. The whole definition of amendment means it can be added, altered or amended by its very purpose. Otherwise that would mean the majority of laws we have today already infringes on our rights.
I will ask the question, "Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence and therefore something has to change? If you do then how do you suggest that be reduced?"
feeder wrote: Wait, this woman has clearly demonstrated that she isn't responsible with guns, yet she is continuing to keep them? Where is personal responsibility?
At this time she gets to keep them. If they charge her with something it just depends on if that charge is enough that she no longer can legally buy a gun. They can charge her with child neglect which won't effect her ability to purchase or own guns depending on state. Even if she was charged with something that made her unable to buy guns, it may not illegal for her to own them. There is also nothing forcing her to turn them in as there is no real records of what she has. It has a fairly high profile so there might result in a charge, previously similar situations has resulted in no charges or such charge that it hasn't impacted their gun ownership.
That is where the main flaw and issue of accountability comes into play. There isn't a way to properly enforce or hold someone accountable. These types of situations happen probably more frequently than people would like to admit or know about. For example a woman with a concealed permit at Home Depot in Auburn Hills, MI pulled her concealed weapon to shoot at an alleged shoplifter getting into a vehicle, while the vehicle drove away in the parking lot.
She was arraigned on a misdemeanor count of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm. She could face jail time, fines and probation but there wouldn't be a firearms restriction unless it became a felony instead of a misdemeanor. On the chance the charge changes to a felony, she is supposed to get rid of her guns. If you don't know how many guns she has, how do you enforce she get rid of her guns? Depending on the state laws for private sales, nothing stops her from simply selling the guns to someone else, without a background check. Even if she did sell them illegally there is no way to hold her accountable for that, since there is no registration.
Dark Severance wrote: For example a woman with a concealed permit at Home Depot in Auburn Hills, MI pulled her concealed weapon to shoot at an alleged shoplifter getting into a vehicle, while the vehicle drove away in the parking lot.
She was arraigned on a misdemeanor count of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm. She could face jail time, fines and probation but there wouldn't be a firearms restriction unless it became a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.
CptJake wrote: Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.
That is correct, in almost all situations I believe they would lose a concealed carry permit. I was more referring that they still have guns, it wouldn't effect her ability to own guns. It was implied earlier that if someone broke a law, they lose their guns and that seemed efficient enough answer for them. It however doesn't work out clearly like that.
CptJake wrote: Any place I have lived, she would lose the concealed carry permit, regardless of felony or misdemeanor, if convicted.
That is correct, in almost all situations I believe they would lose a concealed carry permit. I was more referring that they still have guns, it wouldn't effect her ability to own guns. It was implied earlier that if someone broke a law, they lose their guns and that seemed efficient enough answer for them. It however doesn't work out clearly like that.
Seems pretty clear to me. Loses the permit if convicted. Loses the right to own if convicted of a felony. And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.
CptJake wrote: And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.
Don't you guys always say that only law abiding people will get rid of their guns, when the discussion is about a ban? Now the discussion is about a registry, suddenly criminals will turn over their own guns. Sounds like more having your cake and eating it.
CptJake wrote: Seems pretty clear to me. Loses the permit if convicted. Loses the right to own if convicted of a felony. And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.
Apparently I was wrong there are states that a misdemeanor doesn't prevent someone from getting or keeping a concealed permit. I made a mistake at the initial state I was looking and was looking at Minnesota and saw they didn't have such law. Michigan does have lists on what misdemeanors effect it, one is "reckless discharge of a firearm". In New York (where the woman was shot by her child) apparently only "convicted of a serious offense" which is arbitrarily decided by the county issuing it. However I am not sure she has a concealed permit in the first place. Those only effect concealed weapons though and not owning or possession of a firearm... even after displaying they were not responsible owners, so basically no accountability for their actions unless they committed a felony and even then it depends on the felony.
CptJake wrote: And just like ANY type of property, she will make an individual decision to comply with the law and get rid of her guns or not. Works the same way with things like cocaine or types of chemicals which require licensing to posses. If she fails to obey the law and is caught, there are further consequences.
Don't you guys always say that only law abiding people will get rid of their guns, when the discussion is about a ban? Now the discussion is about a registry, suddenly criminals will turn over their own guns. Sounds like more having your cake and eating it.
You're not understanding.
Probably intentional on your part.
In the case mentioned, the lady is not a career nor habitual criminal. She tried to do what she thought was right, and fethed up pretty good. If convicted of a felony, she can make the choice to BE a habitual criminal and keep her guns, or she can return to her previous state of being a law abiding citizen (though a convict) and get rid of them. In most cases, if she is convicted of a felony she is going to have to do prison time. She won't have her guns there. Once released she will not be allowed to posses/own a gun. That is when she will decide.
Career/habitual criminals with guns (or any convicted felon with a gun who has not had rights restored) has made a conscious decision to break the law. Those folks are not likely to give up guns even if caught again. Once released from prison for getting caught again they'll have the chance to decide again. Some will try to be law abiding at that point and forgo acquiring a new gun, others will continue pervious behavior.
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.
No I understand perfectly well. When "criminals" are just statistics you tar them all with the same brush, but when we actually look at an individual, you start contradicting yourself. Most people who break the law aren't career criminals either.
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.
Please tell us you are joking.
Sorry, did you have something to add to the conversation besides patronising spam? I have already posted at length about how cars have changed (try reading the topic). However, "fundamentally" they are still four wheels, seats, steering wheel, driven by an internal combustion engine. If you are crossing the street and I run you over in a modern car or a 1930s sedan, you're not going to feel much difference.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.
Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them
Desubot wrote: Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/
No, but it does help transport a device that may be used in an anti rape capacity
A Town Called Malus wrote: But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.
Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them
Yeah, I know more then a handful of women who have purposefully bought pink firearms.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from an industry whose solution to getting more women to buy guns was to make them available in pink.
Judging by the sales it seems to be working for them
Desubot wrote: Oh its just a holster.. thats disappointing. i though it was some kinda anti rape device or something :/
No, but it does help transport a device that may be used in an anti rape capacity
I didn't want to make a new thread for this since it dovetails so nicely into this one. I'm told but haven't been able to verify that this happened while trying to take an anti-Trump selfie.
John Wayne once said, "Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid."
Cops: Couple's selfie session with gun takes deadly turn
CONCRETE, Wash. -- A 43-year-old man has died after authorities say he accidentally shot himself in the face while taking selfies.
The Skagit Valley Herald reports the man and his girlfriend were photographing themselves with the weapon on Sunday at a residence when he shot himself.
Skagit County Sheriff's Office Patrol Chief Chad Clark says the woman reported that she and the man had taken photos with the gun several times that day and that the man had loaded and unloaded bullets multiple times.
Clark says a bullet apparently remained in the gun the final time he fired.
The death is being investigated as accidental. The man's name has not been released.
According to San Francisco-based data service provider Priceonomics, there have been 49 recorded selfie-linked deaths since 2014, not including this incident. Four of those 49 deaths were caused by guns.
I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.
No I understand perfectly well. When "criminals" are just statistics you tar them all with the same brush, but when we actually look at an individual, you start contradicting yourself. Most people who break the law aren't career criminals either.
Also cars haven't changed a great deal mechanically either, there have been lots of tweaks and improvements, but they are fundamentally the same sort of thing.
Please tell us you are joking.
Sorry, did you have something to add to the conversation besides patronising spam? I have already posted at length about how cars have changed (try reading the topic). However, "fundamentally" they are still four wheels, seats, steering wheel, driven by an internal combustion engine. If you are crossing the street and I run you over in a modern car or a 1930s sedan, you're not going to feel much difference.
This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.
Prestor Jon wrote: A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one
Evidently, that's highly debatable.
There are registries depending on the kind of firearm and where you live. None of them appear to have had any effect on anything except making owning firearms subject to them a royal PITA, and in at least one case serving as a direct confiscation avenue. The ATF has had its NFA registry for decades, but if may have lost track of up to half of the machine gun records over time, people do routinely find papered weapons that aren't on the current registry and are saved from felony prosecution or losing their firearm by the ancient scrap of paper with a tax stamp on it. My father is *still* on CA's assault weapons registry, despite no longer living in CA for several years, having sold the rifles fifteen years ago, and notified the state DoJ in writing via certified mail multiple times. All evidence points to massive and widespread non-compliance with NY's registry. There's absolutely no evidence to support any sort of registry having a positive effect on homicide rates or that their administration is feasible, but they absolutely do make going through the process of owning these weapons incredibly odious.
I would just like to set a few misconceptions right in this thread.
There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.
In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.
Many of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic however report their "murders" completely differently. This varies from country to country, however one in particular (I'll let you get which one) includes ALL of these requirements: A murder is a death that is non natural, non suicide, non accident, not committed by the mentally ill, not committed by a minor, where the suspect is captured ALIVE, prosecuted, found guilty, and lives to use all their appeals.
Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder. Other countries don't do that, and we happen to have a cartel-run 3rd world country to our south that loves body dumps.
I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.
Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts. When done in this manner the method used makes less of a difference. Also of note is that men make up 40% of suicide attempts, but 80% of actual suicides. Men are more likely to be serious about suicide, and are more likely to retry it after a failed attempt. Coincidently men are also more likely to own guns, however, their success rate by all methods are greater than women. Areas of high gun ownership also are areas of low population density and often lower earnings. These areas also have higher male to female population ratios, older populations, and higher likelyhoods of single person living arrangements. In other words rural areas are poorer, less likely to be able to afford mental health, people live significantly farther from help, are less likely to be diagnosed, less likely to have friends/family around to notice symptoms of depression, and significantly more likely to feel isolated. All these factors skew the results to make it seem that guns cause suicide.
Grey Templar wrote: I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.
That's not terrubly hard as its only ~25 people a year. "Fairly deadly" when discussing firearms seems a bit strong.
Also bought a Savage .17 semi today. Have those ever been used in a crime? Probably? But if I ductape a knife on it and throw a pistol grip on it it's suddenly illegal. I think that's why most people that are against gun control are against it because of that. Ridiculous measures that do nothing to actually attack any problem. So I think people are open to gun legislation, but only when its actually sensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: LOL holy shoot where did you copy that from? Sounds super fun
I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.
The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.
About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.
4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.
In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.
Vaktathi wrote: This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.
Okay, but who are you trying to convince? I was the one who originally brought up and listed the safety improvements for people "inside" cars, so it was never something I disagreed with. Since it is an analogy, there will be some things that don't translate, however, given that many systems in modern cars are now computer controlled, and smart systems aren't common with guns, I disagree with you that there is no room for safety and security improvements with guns. Smart technology could open up a universe of safety features for firearms in the future.
The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.
Prestor Jon wrote: A registry isn't needed, we've gotten along fine without one
Evidently, that's highly debatable.
There are registries depending on the kind of firearm and where you live. None of them appear to have had any effect on anything except making owning firearms subject to them a royal PITA, and in at least one case serving as a direct confiscation avenue. The ATF has had its NFA registry for decades, but if may have lost track of up to half of the machine gun records over time, people do routinely find papered weapons that aren't on the current registry and are saved from felony prosecution or losing their firearm by the ancient scrap of paper with a tax stamp on it. My father is *still* on CA's assault weapons registry, despite no longer living in CA for several years, having sold the rifles fifteen years ago, and notified the state DoJ in writing via certified mail multiple times. All evidence points to massive and widespread non-compliance with NY's registry. There's absolutely no evidence to support any sort of registry having a positive effect on homicide rates or that their administration is feasible, but they absolutely do make going through the process of owning these weapons incredibly odious.
I feel like we've had this conversation before. What can I say? The computer game industry crashed in 1983, did that mean there was no money in computer games? It picked up and now it's worth ~20 billion, computer games weren't a bad idea. Similarly, It sounds like your state registry doesn't work well, it is poorly implemented and enforced. While I can appreciate that might make you suspicious of registration, it doesn't make registration a bad idea. Having a decent paper trail is really important for fighting crime, it is how authorities have managed to clamp down on things like money laundering. If you ever want to tackle the black-market sale of arms in America, then you need to start keeping sufficient records. The current system and general attitude towards tracking guns in America, I personally view as criminally negligent. You have no idea how many there are, no idea who has them or where they are coming from, and no interest in finding out.
Vaktathi wrote: This is a misleading truism, you could say the same fundamental things for projectile weapons in general. Cars are dramatically internally different relative to just a few years ago in ways that there just are no parallels for in firearms. Again, a gunsmith from 1930 could look at just about any gun today and do anything they need to very quickly, a car tech from just a couple decades ago would not be able to adequately service a modern car, any more than a typewriter specialist from the 1970's could fix a modern printer. Likewise the safety component for those *inside* the vehicle is night and day, with injury rates for those within modern cars dramatically lower than those of older era vehicles due to materials and design changes, in ways that don't really translate to firearms.
Okay, but who are you trying to convince? I was the one who originally brought up and listed the safety improvements for people "inside" cars, so it was never something I disagreed with. Since it is an analogy, there will be some things that don't translate, however, given that many systems in modern cars are now computer controlled, and smart systems aren't common with guns, I disagree with you that there is no room for safety and security improvements with guns. Smart technology could open up a universe of safety features for firearms in the future.
In the future, perhaps, but there's ultimately a key difference that is likely to permanently stifle it as a realistic element, which is that in a car, electronics are there to enhance performance, they improve the overall function of the vehicle, making braking safer, improving transmission operation, managing fuel input, managing speed on cruise control, etc, while in a gun, such technology would be there purely to hinder operation of mechanical elements that would otherwise work fine (and in almost all cases, better), without it.
Computerized elements work great in paintball guns where they are operating an electronic solenoid and the "trigger" is just hitting a microswitch, but firearms do not operate in the same manner and retrofitting such to existing designs would be totally impractical.
The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.
This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.
Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.
Dark Severance wrote: I've gone through a few legal definitions of riot and mob. I've also done various searches, checked the wiki, and other than one reference which defines one type of riot, "An immediate riot is unrest among a section of the population , nearly always in the wake of a violent episode of state coercion.".
Hang on, so the only actual outside source you’ve given to counter the popular conception of a riot as an immediate thing is one that says riots are an immediate thing. That’s a new kind of arguing.
Anyhow, if you’re arguing that a series of sporadic, stand alone instances can be called a riot and fit the same psychological behaviour as a riot, then please bring some actual statements to that effect.
Are you implying that the US has high levels of killing sprees?
I’m not implying it. I’m flat out stating it, because it is a thing that is true. The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.
Not that the US murder rate is about spree killing anyway, that’s a tiny portion of the total. But if we look at overall killings, we see the same thing – the US has a lot more killings than other developed countries.
As an example there are still many countries where you can't speak out against the government, they don't have free speech like the US. All those factor into them to create a different environment.
You might want to go look in to the rates of violent crimes in repressive countries. They’re a lot higher than the developed world.
I never said it was a major factor. I think you focused on one thing instead of understanding the whole social psychology behind what is being said. I wasn't specifically talking about murder in general. I was specifically talking about mass shootings and their increased rate, which is different than murder in general as well as suicides (which tend to account for the largest portion of gun violence). Crimes of passion and suicides obviously aren't effected by a riot/mob mentality, there is no manifesto, there aren't a few dozen photos of poses with the guns in classic poses of violent intent, there are records that they researched other shootings.
And here’s where we get to the weird focus of your premise. We know gun suicides, gun murders, gun woundings, spree killings and all other kinds of gun violence are higher per capita in the US than in other developed countries, by an order of magnitude. And we also know that the whole developed world has the internet and freedom of speech and all that stuff.
But you pick spree killings out of isolation, and start talking about how the internet and freedom of speech might increase spree killings. Once you apply the higher level facts it becomes a very silly premise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.
You read a bad article. The 'deaths from selfies' thing is contrived by including any death that happened to occur while a selfie was being taken. It includes people who had heart attacks while taking selfies, for instance.
The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.
This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.
Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.
It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic. It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on. However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.
cuda1179 wrote: There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.
In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.
No, this is a junk claim that gets thrown around among gun rights advocates, but simply has no basis in reality. To account for differences in classification, a concept of 'intentional homicide' has been developed, with consistent definitions across countries.
The US intentional homicide rate is 3.8 per 100,000. Canada is 1.4. Australia is 1.1. Germany 0.8. UK is 1.0. France 1.0 Italy 0.9. I could go on.
Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder.
If you think that accounts for a 3 to 4 times difference in murder rates, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.
No, seriously. On any kind of intentional homicide, the US is three to four times as murderous. The presence of guns doesn't just change the method, they increase the likelihood.
Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts.
No, what makes sense is to compare actual rates of suicide per capita. The US is 12.1 Canada 9.8. Australia is 10.6. .1. Germany 9.2. UK is 6.2. France 12.3. Italy 4.7. So lower than France, and within reach of the other countries, the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as in the other list.
And now I'd just like to address a misconception that I've seen in this thread, that I see in every gun thread. Liking guns and supporting more open access to guns doesn’t require you to pretend that guns have no negative impact. That’s like arguing that because you like 40K there’s nothing wrong with the rules.
Accept that gun proliferation increases the rate of gun violence. The case is obvious and intuitive, and backed up clearly by the stats. Recognising that doesn’t mean you have to support gun control, because there are still very good arguments against gun control. But start from an honest base.
sebster wrote: Hang on, so the only actual outside source you’ve given to counter the popular conception of a riot as an immediate thing is one that says riots are an immediate thing.
I don't think you understood what I said. Riots is defined as, "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people.". No where in the studies or classifications does riots/mobs mention they only happen as a immediate reaction. I mentioned the only source, only one out of all the other sources that talked about a type called an immediate riot and it was in reference to a particular categorized type not as riots as a whole. It talked about an Immediate Riot and Historical Riot but I'm not familiar with source other than it is a french author. I couldn't tell you how accountable it was vs say wiki or the college courses and classes on collective behavior, crowd types, mobs and riots. All the other sources never mention or talk that a riot/mob can only be an immediate reaction.
sebster wrote: The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.
Dark Severance wrote: I don't think you understood what I said. Riots is defined as, "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people.". No where in the studies or classifications does riots/mobs mention they only happen as a immediate reaction. I mentioned the only source, only one out of all the other sources that talked about a type called an immediate riot and it was in reference to a particular categorized type not as riots as a whole. It talked about an Immediate Riot and Historical Riot but I'm not familiar with source other than it is a french author. I couldn't tell you how accountable it was vs say wiki or the college courses and classes on collective behavior, crowd types, mobs and riots. All the other sources never mention or talk that a riot/mob can only be an immediate reaction.
You are yet to provide any evidence for your claim that anyone on Earth besides yourself would see similar actions taken by multiple people, across multiple states, spread months apart, and call that a riot.
The rate of spree killing in the US is significantly higher than other developed countries.
What and how are you defining killing spree?
By standard Bureau of Justice definition - "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders"
And this is getting silly. You're now trying to bog discussion down entirely in terms of definitions, when it is your central premise is completely lacking.
cuda1179 wrote: I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.
The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.
About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.
4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.
In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.
Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.
cuda1179 wrote: I would just like to set a few misconceptions right in this thread.
There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.
In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.
... ...
That is incorrect. Justifiable homicide is distinguished from murder statistics under the Uniform Crime Crime Reporting process.
The FBI reports 12,765 murders in 2012 plus 720 justifiable homicides, 410 by police officers and 310 by citizens caught up in a crime situation. You will note that the murder rate is 17.7 times higher than the justificable homicide rate. The FBI notes that 69% of homicides are carried out with guns.
Grey Templar wrote: I recently read an article where selfies are actually becoming fairly deadly. More people died in 2015 from selfie related causes than from Shark attacks.
You read a bad article. The 'deaths from selfies' thing is contrived by including any death that happened to occur while a selfie was being taken. It includes people who had heart attacks while taking selfies, for instance.
Not to mention that shark attacks are really quite rare, so something being more deadly than shark attacks is not very difficult. Cows are more deadly than sharks when you look at deaths caused by each.
The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.
This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.
Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.
It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic.
And she lost her concealed handgun license and got 18 months of probation, more than what you'd get for driving into oncoming traffic in most places (assuming nobody got hurt).
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.
Maybe yes, maybe no, ultimately it comes down to if you have to pass a certification for it, it's no longer a right. That's simply a fundamental nature of what a right constitutes.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
Here is my daughter, way too young to get a driver's license, learning to operate a backhoe.
cuda1179 wrote: I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.
The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.
About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.
4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.
In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.
Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.
Unfortunately it's not just one person. Here in the US there are a couple states, and multiple cities, where owning a .50 rifle is not only illegal, but a felony punishable by several years in prison. There was a case a while back about a man with two houses, one in California, one in Utah. He owned a .50 rifle, and stored it in his Utah home. The state of California, where the .50 is illegal, charged him anyway, as in their opinion their laws prohibit California citizens from owning a .50, regardless of its actual location.
Also, I am jealous of the UK in your laws regarding sound suppressors. I here you can buy those over the counter. Here in the US we need to live in a designated area, fill out complicated paperwork, pay a heavy fee, wait quite a while for government approval, buy them from a specialized dealer, and then keep them within our state or residence.
cuda1179 wrote: There is a slight misconception that the US has a MUCH higher murder rate than other industrialized countries. This needs a bit of an explanation. The reported murder rate is higher. The thing is that when international murder rates are compared we use the murder rates as-reported by the individual countries themselves. There is no standard definition for what "murder" actually is. The US simply has a MUCH broader definition of what murder is than the other industrialized countries out there.
In the US "murder" is any death that is non-natural, non-suicide, non accident. This by definition includes legal self defense and police actions.
No, this is a junk claim that gets thrown around among gun rights advocates, but simply has no basis in reality. To account for differences in classification, a concept of 'intentional homicide' has been developed, with consistent definitions across countries.
The US intentional homicide rate is 3.8 per 100,000. Canada is 1.4. Australia is 1.1. Germany 0.8. UK is 1.0. France 1.0 Italy 0.9. I could go on.
Also, the US is unique in that we count murders that occur outside our jurisdiction. Hypothetically, if there is a conspiracy to lure someone out of the country and kill them, is still counts as a US murder. Also, if we find a body within our boarders, even if we are sure the person was killed on the other side of the boarder, it still counts as a US murder.
If you think that accounts for a 3 to 4 times difference in murder rates, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I'd also like to address the difference between "firearms murders" and "total murders". I will admit that the US far surpasses others for firearms murders, but we also have significantly fewer stabbings, beatings, and poisonings. It's less of a case of more deaths, than just different styles of death. That is of course unless someone wants to argue that being shot to death makes you more dead than being stabbed to death.
No, seriously. On any kind of intentional homicide, the US is three to four times as murderous. The presence of guns doesn't just change the method, they increase the likelihood.
Now I'd like to address Suicide. Many say that having a firearm increases your chance of suicide. There is some truth to that, however, once again it is overstated. For starters there are two kinds of suicide attempts. "Real" suicide attempts and simply cries for attention. People that are shouting for help and aren't sure they want to commit suicide make up over 40% of suicide attempts. These people do NOT choose guns for obvious reasons. I'd argue that it is only viable to compare "true" suicide attempts.
No, what makes sense is to compare actual rates of suicide per capita. The US is 12.1 Canada 9.8. Australia is 10.6. .1. Germany 9.2. UK is 6.2. France 12.3. Italy 4.7. So lower than France, and within reach of the other countries, the difference is nowhere near as pronounced as in the other list.
And now I'd just like to address a misconception that I've seen in this thread, that I see in every gun thread. Liking guns and supporting more open access to guns doesn’t require you to pretend that guns have no negative impact. That’s like arguing that because you like 40K there’s nothing wrong with the rules.
Accept that gun proliferation increases the rate of gun violence. The case is obvious and intuitive, and backed up clearly by the stats. Recognising that doesn’t mean you have to support gun control, because there are still very good arguments against gun control. But start from an honest base.
There was an effort a while back to homogenize the definition of "murder" to only include intentional killings. However, even this was met with some problems. Many countries still don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill to be "intentional". Also, some countries are still only listing their convictions, not actual killings.
There is also the fact that the US is one of the most racially and culturally diverse nations on the planet. For all the good there is in that studies have shown that the more diverse a location is the more violent it is, regardless of other factors.
I'd also like to throw Japan's suicide rate of 26.1 into the discussion. That's well over twice that of the US. In fact, their suicide rate alone is higher than the US combined suicide/murder rate.
sebster wrote: By standard Bureau of Justice definition - "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders"
Actually no I'm trying to understand what you are talking about. It is clear we're talking about two entirely different things. I was specifically talking about mass shootings which aren't spree killings. They have completely different psychology and reasoning behind them. That is main issue with talking about gun violence is everyone tends to group everything together as one thing and there are multiple levels within it.
Can you provide some information on where you are getting your data for spree killings? I can't find a lists of them that compares the US to other countries statistics, as it looks like the FBI classifies spree killings like that but other countries don't seperate out their murders as clearly. There is a listing of sources I can confirm at gunviolencearchive.org but not a large amount if looking at spree killings.
sebster wrote: You are yet to provide any evidence for your claim that anyone on Earth besides yourself would see similar actions taken by multiple people, across multiple states, spread months apart, and call that a riot.
Honestly I figured you wouldn't take my word for it and would at least do some research on your own. I at least bothered to look and search for the information you provided to collaborate it. I'm also not claiming that all mass shootings are akin to riots. There is a sociology behind these people who aren't actually mentally ill as defined by current standards.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
Can someone driving on a private road or property by driving a forklift, riding mower, etc kill or hurt someone on public property while never leaving private property?
CptJake wrote: Here is my daughter, way too young to get a driver's license, learning to operate a backhoe.
That was actually how I learned how to drive. Although in the country it was also fine driving on the public road as long as it was heading to one of the other properties. I learned to drive at 12 and at 14 was driving between the properties with the truck or tractor. State troopers would wave and we would talk but I never got a ticket for not having a license. Unfortunately that was at least over 20 years ago, it would be interesting to know if someone did the same thing today if it would be perceived differently.
The purpose of the analogy was to discuss regulation, particularly regulation of users, since that would be analogous to 2nd amendment rights. From that perspective, and from the perspective of people walking around, cars haven't changed much, they are still vehicles, still on roads, still have four wheels, still big lumps of speeding metal. So why are pedestrians so much safer now? Aside from breaking distance (which isn't a big factor), there is no mechanical improvement that has made pedestrians significantly safer. What has made pedestrians safer is education and regulation, proving that regulation can work, and does not constitute a ban.
This goes back to what I mentioned earlier, in that cars are inherently more regulatable in this sense. Most cars sold are designed to function mostly or entirely on paved surface roads, so where they can go and what they can do is inherently limited and easy to regulate. I get the point you're driving at, but we've also had a hundred years of building a society and infrastructure and cities *around* such roads, and spending vast amounts of time and effort designing the roads themselves in such a fashion as to put pedestrians at minimal risk as well, as opposed to say, the 1910's or 1930's where, outside all but the most urbanized environments in a far more rural society, there was nothing about the fundamental underlying infrastructure to differentiate where people walked and where people drove. Firearms don't really have the same parallel, but, that said, most anything potential harmful that you'd do with a firearm generally is illegal already. You can't just set up a target stand in your backyard and shoot a firearm in 99% of cases (the exception being people that live *wayyyyy* out in the boonies, far from incorporated towns & cities) and accidental/negligent discharge is typically covered under the same laws and subject to the same penalties. Likewise you can't use a gun to threaten or intimidate someone except in self defense (and even then it's dicey) in any place I'm aware of. You can't carry a firearm into a secured area of an airport or a courtroom.These kinds of things already have regulation that most people aren't terribly upset with.
Essentially, anything negligent or belligerent you'd do with a firearm is already regulated.
It's all very well having the regulations, but what value are they if people aren't well versed in them? In the case of the woman who pulled out her gun to fire at a shoplifter, she did the gun equivalent of speeding into oncoming traffic. It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on. However, you've got into such a tangle with this 2nd amendment nonsense, that insisting someone be trained and competent is now "unconstitutional", which is just pure foolishness.
Guns have always been deadly and dangerous. This was true back when the constitution was ratified and many of the people at the convention were well aware of the current firearm technology and how it was continually improving. The average pistol, either semi auto or revolver, are based on the same designs that were in use a century ago. In times of much higher gun ownership rates of firearms fundamentally the same as current models there was no impetus to put restrictive training requirements on our 2A rights and there's still no compelling reason to change now.
Property registries tend to have more to do with taxation than safety or crime prevention. The state wants you to register your car so they know where to send the tax bill, how much to charge and who to come after if it doesn't get paid. The state doesn't care about your driving record or ability or if you even have a license to drive. My state registration form is just an invoice listing the year make mode and VIN of my car the states estimated value of it and how much I have to pay. If the state didn't tax cars there wouldn't be a need to register them.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime you lose your guns whether they are registered or not.
How do you lose your guns if no one knows you have them?
The authorities will know if I've had a gun lost or stolen the same way they'll know if any other valuable piece of personal property of mine is lost or stolen, by me filing a lost/stolen property report with local law enforcement as required by law and my insurance company.
Come on man, at least read your own posts, I've had more structured conversations with my dog.
You said: If you commit a crime you lose your guns. Since there is no logical connection between committing crimes and misplacing things, I assume that by "lost" you mean: someone in authority takes them away. I said: (after you commit a crime,) how do the authorities know what (and how many guns) you might have, if the guns aren't registered?
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed. The same way law enforcement justifies searches for illegal drugs or other contraband. Prior to committing such a crime a citizen would be protected by his/her 4th amendment rights. Those same rights would prevent law enforcement from conducting searches to see if all guns got registered if we ever created a registry.
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
Can someone driving on a private road or property by driving a forklift, riding mower, etc kill or hurt someone on public property while never leaving private property?
In theory possibly. Someone here hit a power pole and knocked it over into the street with a bobcat a few months ago, someone could lose control of a vehicle and end up on public property, etc. Its also legal to use all sorts of heavy equipment on public streets without training or licensing, a wood chipper for instance.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.
You can't carry a firearm under your coat without a permit in most places either. Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds. Or even possess one unless you are 21 for a handgun, 16 to 18 in some jurisdictions for rifles.
Need we bring up the countless people that have intentionally used their car to kill so many people. Or the guy that demolished most of the uptown area of his town with his bulldozer.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed.
They are welcome to search my premises but they wouldn't know what to look for or find anything. For the record all my firearms aren't kept at my house. I made a decision while back when I found out my son had autism and removed them from the premises. It wasn't that I had fear they were unsafe or that he couldn't learn to use them properly and safely but there are other complications, it was easier to remove them. They were at my grandfathers until he past away now they are at my fathers and also my uncles property. Law enforcement would also be welcome to go back east to search there as well, but they wouldn't know which ones are mine. The only one they would probably be able to identify would be my pistol as that was what I registered with when I did have my concealed permit.
I am curious if you believe there is an issue or if you believe the current level of things are acceptable. If you do believe there is an issue, what do you recommend as ways to improve the situation?
cuda1179 wrote: Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds.
You would need to clarify by what you mean school grounds. Are we talking elementary, high school, college or something else? This is dependent on state/county laws, colleges can allow those with concealed permits to carry and some high schools have as well.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
True, but my point was that they aren't. If you want to operate a motor vehicle on a public street, thats heavily regulated, and is relatively easy to regulate. Outside of that however, regulation is minimal or nonexistent and becomes increasingly difficult. Firearms dont have an equivalent of public road usage, theyre not consuming a public good in the way a car is, which makes regulation of the same type very difficult.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then they have enough justification to search for those guns or get a warrant if needed.
They are welcome to search my premises but they wouldn't know what to look for or find anything. For the record all my firearms aren't kept at my house. I made a decision while back when I found out my son had autism and removed them from the premises. It wasn't that I had fear they were unsafe or that he couldn't learn to use them properly and safely but there are other complications, it was easier to remove them. They were at my grandfathers until he past away now they are at my fathers and also my uncles property. Law enforcement would also be welcome to go back east to search there as well, but they wouldn't know which ones are mine. The only one they would probably be able to identify would be my pistol as that was what I registered with when I did have my concealed permit.
I am curious if you believe there is an issue or if you believe the current level of things are acceptable. If you do believe there is an issue, what do you recommend as ways to improve the situation?
cuda1179 wrote: Nor can you legally bring one on to school grounds.
You would need to clarify by what you mean school grounds. Are we talking elementary, high school, college or something else? This is dependent on state/county laws, colleges can allow those with concealed permits to carry and some high schools have as well.
If you committed a crime that disqualified you from gun ownership it would be on your record and you would get a severe sentence if you were ever caught trying to purchase one or were caught having one in your possession so if they couldn't find any guns they needed to confiscate you would still be barred from using one. If you're found guilty of committing a crime severe enough to make you lose your 2A rights then you're probably spending some time in prison before you ever get the opportunity to illegally possess a firearm.
I don't see a problem with the way things are now. I don't have any concerns about the people I know who are armed or that people I don't know are armed. I find my town and state to be a very nice hospitable place with good people and that gun ownership here is fairly commonplace. There are some laws and restrictions that I feel are unnecessary and others that I don't mind but I don't think things would be much different if we got rid of those too.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.
Hang on, you state that for the Canadians, but didn't Barrack Obama have a stated intent to regulate gun laws and that has been frustrated at every step by republicans and others too feeble to stand up to special interest lobby groups?
In fact, I got piled on by a group for even suggesting that POTUS was unable, as an elected official carrying his mandate, to enact his stated aims.
Surely he too was elected, and reflected the will of the people of the US?
cuda1179 wrote: I'll have to dig up this funny anti-.50 BMG news article I read a couple weeks ago.
The author linked to a study that showed 44 crimes committed with .50 rifles to show how "deadly" they were. I reviewed each and every one of those listed.
About 60% of those crimes were people in possession of .50 rifles while committing other non-related crimes. For example one of them was a guy caught with a handful of marijuana plants and also had a rifle in his closet.
4 of those crimes actually ended in not-guilty verdicts.
1 of them was a guy that accidentally started a fire with his rifle while shooting at a tree stump.
2 of them were actually .50 muzzle loading guns, not the .50 BMG rifles the author was railing against.
In there end there was about a dozen actual crimes, across the world, over a 15 year period where they were used in crimes.
Seriously? Somone was campaigning against one caliber? One of the least risky, given the size, weight and cost of a .50 BMG rifle, and how hard it can be to get hold of .50 BMG rounds. Not exactly the first choice of rifle for a crime.
Unfortunately it's not just one person. Here in the US there are a couple states, and multiple cities, where owning a .50 rifle is not only illegal, but a felony punishable by several years in prison. There was a case a while back about a man with two houses, one in California, one in Utah. He owned a .50 rifle, and stored it in his Utah home. The state of California, where the .50 is illegal, charged him anyway, as in their opinion their laws prohibit California citizens from owning a .50, regardless of its actual location.
Also, I am jealous of the UK in your laws regarding sound suppressors. I here you can buy those over the counter. Here in the US we need to live in a designated area, fill out complicated paperwork, pay a heavy fee, wait quite a while for government approval, buy them from a specialized dealer, and then keep them within our state or residence.
Ye, lots of people don't understand that some areas UK gun law is more relaxed than the US. We have no specific rules on maximum caliber. The licencing is just the same as any other firearm, in that you just have to show you need it, which means a have a place to shoot, which depends on the gun.
On the suppressor, not exactly. For air rifles, yes, very easy to buy, which I believe is not the case in the US. For firearms they need to be on your licence and are treated as a firearm in their own right for licencing. However there is no additional cost and the justification for "need" is hearing damage risk or risk of noise annoying people when hunting. I have never heard of anyone being refused. Our system does have floors, including that some police forces that got in trouble for unreasonably refusing licences, who have now resorted to just processing very slowly, but it does have some good points. IMO neither the UK nore the US system is right, but somewhere between the two. I have no problem with the requirements for licencing before ownership, but I would like to be able to own a rifle without the need to either have lots of land or being an active member of a shooting club. I would like to be able to go to a range and shoot as and when I like, but there are many people I would not like to have access to guns who would if we had the US system.
Smacks wrote: It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.
Hang on, you state that for the Canadians, but didn't Barrack Obama have a stated intent to regulate gun laws and that has been frustrated at every step by republicans and others too feeble to stand up to special interest lobby groups?
In fact, I got piled on by a group for even suggesting that POTUS was unable, as an elected official carrying his mandate, to enact his stated aims.
Surely he too was elected, and reflected the will of the people of the US?
Presidents don't control the legislative process. If Barak Obama had enough support in Congress to pass a federal law mandated a federal firearms registry and that law withstood a constitutional challenge then we would have a national firearms registry because that's how the process works. Since there isn't a majority in Congress in favor of passing the level of regulation Obama campaigned on those laws aren't getting passed.
On October 25, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-19, legislation to scrap the Canadian Long-Gun Registry.[4] The bill was to repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns) and mandate the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.[4] The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons (156 to 123).[38] On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 was passed in the House of Commons (159 to 130) with support from the Conservatives and two NDP MPs. On April 4, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the Senate by a vote of 50-27 and received royal assent from the Governor General on April 5.[39]
If the people of the US want to pass specific types of legislation then it needs to be popular enough that a majority of elected representatives choose to vote for it. It's much bigger than just picking one president and suddenly getting new laws.
Prestor Jon wrote: So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.
After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservatives did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so it's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.
Vaktathi wrote: True, but my point was that they aren't. If you want to operate a motor vehicle on a public street, thats heavily regulated, and is relatively easy to regulate. Outside of that however, regulation is minimal or nonexistent and becomes increasingly difficult. Firearms dont have an equivalent of public road usage, theyre not consuming a public good in the way a car is, which makes regulation of the same type very difficult.
You always argue your points well Vaktathi, exalted. I feel that we can probably find a lot to agree on in all of this. Perhaps that analogies are helpful for explaining things, but they don't constitute logical arguments. These car analogies seem to appear on both sides of the debate however.
Prestor Jon wrote: So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.
After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservative did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so It's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.
The flawed Canadian election process gave the previous far right government a 100% mandate with barely a third of the popular vote, and the current centre right government also has 100% of the power with not much better numbers. It's not at all "the will of the people".
Back OT, does anyone in here think this woman should be keeping her guns? She has demonstrated she is a negligent gun owner.
Prestor Jon wrote: So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.
Prestor Jon wrote: The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.
After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservatives did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so it's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.
Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.
The conservatives in Canada were able to put together a strong enough coalition of representatives to pass the bill that eliminated the gun registry. That means there was a majority of representatives who knew that voting for the bill wouldn't damage their political careers enough to dissuade them from voting yes. If subsequent sessions of the legislature can form coalitions of enough size to pass new legislation that recreates the gun registry they can pass such a bill. To date they haven't so it clearly isn't a high legislative priority. If there was enough popular pressure being applied to representatives to pass a new gun registry law then it would get passed but so far there isn't any evidence of that.
Back OT, does anyone in here think this woman should be keeping her guns? She has demonstrated she is a negligent gun owner.
Depends on what charges are brought about by the local DA. These two seem to be the most applicable Florida statutes.
790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
1(3) As used in this act, the term “minor” means any person under the age of 16.
History.—ss. 2, 7, ch. 89-534; s. 1216, ch. 97-102.
1Note.—Also published at s. 784.05(4).
790.15 Discharging firearm in public.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or whosoever knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Any driver or owner of any vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, who knowingly directs any other person to discharge any firearm from the vehicle commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 1, ch. 3289, 1881; RS 2683; GS 3626; RGS 5557; CGL 7743; s. 1, ch. 61-334; s. 745, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 78-17; s. 1, ch. 89-157; s. 229, ch. 99-245.
Prestor Jon wrote: So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.
Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.
Okay I'll break it down for you. Firstly, you summed up a part of an argument for a registry as the whole argument. Secondly, I never claimed police were "inept" that was a misrepresentation. Thirdly, the scope of the registry is not limited to "serious felonies".
The registry would help police determine if someone owns guns, how many guns they own, what the guns are, and if they have been lawfully passed on, without having to waste time and manpower tearing apart every place a person might have hidden guns, without any idea what they are looking for. Arguing that would help police (which is obviously true), is not the same as calling police "inept", which was the dishonest way you twisted it. If you can't see a strawman, then that's probably just more dishonesty on your part, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone else reading.
Prestor Jon wrote: So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.
Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.
Okay I'll break it down for you. Firstly, you summed up a part of an argument for a registry as the whole argument. Secondly, I never claimed police were "inept" that was a misrepresentation. Thirdly, the scope of the registry is not limited to "serious felonies".
The registry would help police determine if someone owns guns, how many guns they own, what the guns are, and if they have been lawfully passed on, without having to waste time and manpower tearing apart every place a person might have hidden guns, without any idea what they are looking for. Arguing that would help police (which is obviously true), is not the same as calling police "inept", which was the dishonest way you twisted it. If you can't see a strawman, then that's probably just more dishonesty on your part, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone else reading.
Firstly, I never said it was your whole argument. It was a specific response to a specific point you argued that I quoted before I queried you about it. Secondly, it was a question not a declarative statement. I asked you if the point you were trying to make was consistent with my interpretation of what you were saying. Thirdly, the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Prestor Jon wrote: the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.
Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).
Prestor Jon wrote: the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.
Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).
Why should it be public? Other citizens don't have any right to see what you own and it could lead to descriminatory actions.
The gun tracing utility would be limited to tracing guns used by people who were already disqualified from owning them. I'm not sure how many prohibited people commit gun crimes or how difficult it is for police to trace guns in those instances currently.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why should it be public? Other citizens don't have any right to see what you own and it could lead to discriminatory actions.
The gun tracing utility would be limited to tracing guns used by people who were already disqualified from owning them. I'm not sure how many prohibited people commit gun crimes or how difficult it is for police to trace guns in those instances currently.
Depending on the state there are quite a few records that are public, although knowing how to access them isn't the same or easiest method. It is my opinion, although I would have to spend some real time and research the positives and negatives of it. Could it prevent home invasion, while directing thieves to other locations, possibly. Could it serve to stop person A from seeing Joe Smith having a gun, calling the police and having them show up to look into the issue because they reported Joe Smith as "suspicious"... which does happen, actually did happen to me at my own house of all places.
At the time a prohibited person committed the crime, they were "law abiding" until they did the crime, so it wouldn't have been prohibited person. There are quite a few times that the police can't trace guns that are used to their actual owners or place of origin, unless they happened to be military weapons. For example locally a person shot up at a mall with a AR-15. He stole the weapon from an 'acquaintance'. The only way they identified the weapon was the person stepped forward as that was his gun. It wasn't reported stolen, he didn't know it was missing. He could have not said anything and I doubt they would have found out who owned it. Depending on how it was stored, stolen, etc the owner should be held accountable in some instances for not being responsible with it. He didn't get charged though. There is another case where the rifles used at a shooting was borrowed from someone else. The gun was returned to the rightful owner and no charges were pressed.
I anticipated you would say that, and I don't believe you. I think you deliberately tried to infer that my whole argument was nonsense, by summing it up in one nonsense misrepresentation, which was your own construction. However, since you didn't explicitly say "whole argument" I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and concede the first point to you. (because I'm nice like that)
Prestor Jon wrote: Secondly, it was a question not a declarative statement. I asked you if the point you were trying to make was consistent with my interpretation of what you were saying.
I believe the second point was that I called the police "inept". As a matter of fact, I didn't ever say that, did I? It only existed as part of your "interpretation", or to be more precise: your "construction". The fact that you phrased it as a sarcastic rhetorical question doesn't excuse it. It was a blatant attempt to misrepresent my argument.
Prestor Jon wrote: Thirdly, the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Now you are presenting a new argument, which may or may not be true (actually it's not true), but it was certainly not part of my original argument, and I didn't limit myself to powers of confiscation.
If officers are called to a disturbance, they might want to consult the registry as a safety precaution. Knowing for a fact that there is a weapon or multiple weapons associated with the address might be a valuable heads up, and is always preferable to going in blind. Canadian officers noted that it made them feel safer and more confident having that information. Someone might also want to consult the registry when guns are lost and found, which would help identify straw purchases and black market sales. It might be valuable for statics (finally shedding more light on these gun debates). It could also be used to solve crimes, if a specific type of weapon was used in a crime, the police would be able to establish a link between that weapon and the suspect, even if the suspect had since disposed of the gun. There might be many other reasons to consult the register which I haven't even thought of yet, and which aren't limited to confiscating guns after "serious felonies".
So to answer your question more absolutely: No, what you proposed was not an accurate representation of my argument, and was, in fact, inaccurate in every conceivable way.
cuda1179 wrote: There was an effort a while back to homogenize the definition of "murder" to only include intentional killings. However, even this was met with some problems. Many countries still don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill to be "intentional". Also, some countries are still only listing their convictions, not actual killings.
And you're just repeating a thing that I'm telling you isn't true. Go look up intentional homicide rates. All those issues you claim aren't a problem. And those show a clearly higher rate of intentional homidice in the US than other countries.
There is also the fact that the US is one of the most racially and culturally diverse nations on the planet. For all the good there is in that studies have shown that the more diverse a location is the more violent it is, regardless of other factors.
Actually, the US is middle of the pack for developed countries outside of Europe. About 12 to 13% of the population of the US was born somewhere else. Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all higher.
And it's interesting you're now talking about violence. The US is actually no higher than other developed countries when it comes to violent crime. Your figures for muggings, assault and other violent crimes are on par. It's just murders where you spike to triple the rest of the developed world. You're not more violent. It's just that your violence results in murders more often. Because of the proliferation of a device that's really good at killing.
I'd also like to throw Japan's suicide rate of 26.1 into the discussion. That's well over twice that of the US. In fact, their suicide rate alone is higher than the US combined suicide/murder rate.
And anyone who claimed Japan didn't have problems would be completely wrong. If you want to start a thread on Japan we can talk about the impact of 20 years of economic stagnation if you want. But to claim that their problems means the US doesn't have a different problem is pretty weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dark Severance wrote: Can you provide some information on where you are getting your data for spree killings? I can't find a lists of them that compares the US to other countries statistics, as it looks like the FBI classifies spree killings like that but other countries don't seperate out their murders as clearly. There is a listing of sources I can confirm at gunviolencearchive.org but not a large amount if looking at spree killings.
I'm sorry, are you refusing to take as a given the argument that the US has more spree killings than other developed countries per capita? Or rampage killings or mass killings or whatever term you want to use, it doesn't matter. Because honest to God, I know this is the internet and it's crazy to expect good faith argument, but this is really quite something.
Anyhow, from 2000 to 2014 there were 166 mass shootings in the US (four or more victims). The US had 133 of them. You're claiming to have some knowledge of this subject, but are playing dumb over the extremely US centric nature of this problem.
So there you go. You made me go and get a source for something we both already knew.
Honestly I figured you wouldn't take my word for it and would at least do some research on your own. I at least bothered to look and search for the information you provided to collaborate it. I'm also not claiming that all mass shootings are akin to riots. There is a sociology behind these people who aren't actually mentally ill as defined by current standards.
The expectation that people idea that people wander off looking to substantiate other poster's arguments is, as I said earlier, an amazing new way of debating. You make the claim, you make the case for it. If someone else is to be expected to go looking for information, it will be to support a counter.
Anyhow, thanks for the links. I can't watch the youtube links, but I did read the New Yorker piece, and it was very interesting. If true, though, it is still only useful in describing a very small portion of these killings. Despite the extra media attention, attacks on schools are not that common, they make up only a few of the 133 attacks in the US. And perhaps most tellingly the article contains this line "And, not surprisingly, given the ready availability of firearms in the United States, the phenomenon is overwhelmingly American."
The WaPo article had nothing to do with your argument. It talked about these kids often being at the social margins, then talked about what policies might help (security etc).
Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.
If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.
Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.
Prestor Jon wrote: the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.
Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).
I'd guess it would be handy if you needed to call up this 'well regulated militia' I keep hearing about...
Kilkrazy wrote: Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.
If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.
Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.
Switzerland had a lot more then just the 1 variable with that. I'd love to go into it more, but at work right now and can't really spend a half hour digging through various studies and the like on that topic.
sebster wrote: I'm sorry, are you refusing to take as a given the argument that the US has more spree killings than other developed countries per capita? Or rampage killings or mass killings or whatever term you want to use, it doesn't matter. Because honest to God, I know this is the internet and it's crazy to expect good faith argument, but this is really quite something.
Anyhow, from 2000 to 2014 there were 166 mass shootings in the US (four or more victims). The US had 133 of them. You're claiming to have some knowledge of this subject, but are playing dumb over the extremely US centric nature of this problem.
I'm not arguing anything, I was having a discussion. I'm not angry or heated about this discussion but it is a debate/conversion. Spree Killings and Mass Shootings are entirely two different things. They are mean and talk about two entirely different crimes and mindsets. Part of the discussions about guns don't understand that as there isn't a "one solution" because there are multiple causes. The real answer is to determine what is considered an acceptable loss as there is no way to resolve the crime 100% of the time and you can't simply take all the guns away. So the idea is to come up with solutions that impact the future moving forward given the current state of affairs. For that it is important that everyone is talking about the same thing.
The WSJ article will not let me view it unless I subscribe. I signed in but it still has the Join box over it and won't let me read the article so I can't look at what it using for its information. It however is talking about Mass Shootings, which I never denied and was what I was originally talking about... but then there was the focus on Spree Killings, which have a different cause and effect.
Spree Killings, Spree Killer, Killer Sprees are defined by the FBI as, "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Mass Murders as defined by the FBI are, "mass shootings are defined by one incident, with no distinctive time period between the murder". One is two incidents while another is one incident. Mass Shootings are typically tracked as "if 4 or more people are actually killed, not including the perpetrator". That isn't always the case which is important to know when statistics are posted how they categorized them. The problem is statistics blur these. Some track Spree Killings as defined, others track just Mass Shootings separately, some only mix mass shootings and spree killing together, others include suicide gun related injuries in their stats and some will define them as 4 or more.
I never denied that the US is considered the highest is mass shootings. They are however not considered the highest in spree killings as I said the data for that tracking is blurred. I had thought maybe you would have some more information on it. I also never said that my belief isn't the sole reason behind things. I did say there is a sociology spread through social media, how the media hypes everything.
For example this recent shooting where a man shot three people who didn't speak English. Most of the media reports it as "Trump's America is Close" or something similar. I had thought it happened at a rally or as a part of it or even near but found out it has nothing to do with that. This article probably is the best that gives the facts without directing it with an agenda. I am curious how it ends up because they are seeking a "mental competency" test. Current data only shows that less than 5% of gun homicides between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with mental illness. All the other shooters have something else going on that isn't defined by todays definition of "mental illness". Just they start to diagnose new mental illness due to technology and social media, for example selfies are classified as a mental disorder now.
sebster wrote: The WaPo article had nothing to do with your argument. It talked about these kids often being at the social margins, then talked about what policies might help (security etc).
I linked it because it is talking about the social aspects. There is a bit more in her book but it talks about the sociology of these people not connecting through normal means. They find a connection with these other shooters. It is why you have the manifesto, the similar posed pictures. The sociology which relates to mob/riot mentality due to thresholds that we have. The averange "normal" person one that we would probably say is normal at least wouldn't find a connection as their thresholds are higher and not effected by this. These people which may or not be mentally ill (can't investigate a dead person) are mostly normal because there is no analysis or understanding behind it except from sociology behavior. They don't fit a normal killer profile, they aren't violent, they don't have a criminal background, they didn't grow up in hard environments, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.
If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.
Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.
Switzerland had a lot more then just the 1 variable with that. I'd love to go into it more, but at work right now and can't really spend a half hour digging through various studies and the like on that topic.
After the shooting at Sandy Hook in 2012 the state of Connecticut and the state of New York passed new gun control laws. Both states passed laws that required gun owners to register "assault rifles" if they owned any. "Assault rifles" being AR or AK style rifles because those are scarier to some people than all the other types of semi automatic rifles. To date those registries have abysmal participation rates and local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
When the deadline for gun owners to register their “assault weapons” in Connecticut expired on December 31, 2013, Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register “assault weapons.” (I put “assault weapon” in quotes because the only way to define the term is according to what a particular gun-control law decides it means.) There was no process for registering the guns late, so any gun owner in Connecticut with an “assault weapon” had become a potential felon as of January 1, 2014.
This caused the media to wonder how many gun owners didn’t register their politically incorrect guns. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, said at the time that it estimated there were likely 350,000 residents of Connecticut who had banned “assault weapons” as of late 2013. The media ran with this. Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their “assault weapons.”
Many then asked New York State how many gun owners had registered their “assault weapons” by the April 2014 deadline set by New York’s SAFE Act (the SAFE Act also considers some shotguns to be “assault weapons”). New York State refused to answer the question, but the NSSF said it estimates that about one million residents of New York State had so-called “assault weapons” at the time of the ban.
The numbers of gun owners who might still have “assault weapons” are not guesses. The NSSF said, “The 350,000 number is a conservative estimate based upon numerous surveys, consumer purchases, NICS background check data and also private party transactions.” The NSSF used the same criteria to estimate that at least one million New York residents have firearms the state banned the sale of and demanded that owners register with the police.
When New York State wouldn’t give up the numbers, Paloma Capanna, an attorney from Rochester, New York, filed a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law for her client Rochester radio host Bill Robinson. When that was refused, she sued. This suit finally forced the New York State Police to give up the numbers (not the names of the people who registered their guns).
According to the state just 23,847 people registered their so-called “assault weapons” since the 2013 law took effect. These people registered a total of 44,485 firearms. So, according to the NSSF’s estimate, some 976,153 New Yorkers didn’t register their “assault weapons.”
This means that nearly one million New York State residents might now be committing felonies—this has turned average, and presumably otherwise law-abiding citizens, into a class of people who are now living beyond the law.
On a personal note, I live in Dutchess County, New York. These just-released records say 731 people in my county registered their “assault weapons” with the New York State Police. I don’t know a single gun owner who admits they’ve registered any of their guns; actually, if any did, they likely wouldn’t admit it, as there is a profound social stigma among gun owners against registering these guns with the government.
I do know many people who have semiautomatic rifles and shotguns the state deems to be “assault weapons” they say they didn’t register. Most of these people continue to bring these guns to their local ranges to shoot with. When you ask them if the complied with the SAFE Act, they are quick to tell you that many municipalities and county sheriff departments have reported they won’t enforce the SAFE Act in their jurisdictions.
Given all this, did turning perhaps a million residents of New York State into lawbreakers solve anything? Instead of creating a new criminal class—and stoking anti-government feelings—wouldn’t it have been smarter for the governor and other elected officials to have worked with gun owners to find solutions?
Connecticut Pols Shocked That 'Tens of Thousands' of Gun Owners Defy Registration Laws
J.D. Tuccille|Feb. 12, 2014 4:24 pm
Earlier this month, I pointed to a 2011 Connecticut legislative report to make the point that anemic registration of "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines under a particularly stupid new state law demonstrated that gun owners were continuing a long and proud tradition of defying restrictions on weapons ownership. Now lawmakers and journalists in the state acknowledge the same phenomenon, and the mass scofflawry it represents, and wonder just what corner they've backed themselves into.
Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as "assault weapons," and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for "assault weapon" registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.
Ummm. Errr.
As Dan Haar writes for the Hartford Courant:
And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.
"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."
From a politicians' perspective, this is a problem. The sheep are refusing to be herded. But this was a completely predictable "problem." These laws always experience more defiance than compliance, in the United States and around the world. The reasons people resist restrictions on their ability to own weapons probably vary, but the empowerment that comes with owning arms probably plays a role, and government officials' eternal and consistent lying about why they want to know who is armed certainly does, too.
Of course, if you value liberty over government officials' whims, and consider government to be little more than a protection racket with better PR, this is hardly a problem at all.
Mike Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management and leading mouthpiece for this legislative disaster, pretends the "problem" could be solved by ... writing letters.
The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.
"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."
But those letters are unlikely to be terribly intimidating, because a background check isn't proof that somebody owns a forbidden rifle. They might have moved it out of state, destroyed it, lost it, or sold it privately in a transaction that won't be regulated under state law until April 2014.
Not Many People Obeying New York State "Assault Weapon" Registration
SAFE Act widely ignored, New York state is forced to admit.
Brian Doherty|Jun. 23, 2015 2:09 pm
From the frontiers of futile gun regulation, this news today from the state of New York, via the Daily News, regarding the state's post-Newtown attempt to register so-called "assault weapons":
Fewer than 45,000 assault-style weapons have been registered in New York state since a landmark gun control act took effect in 2013...
In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police....
By comparison, individuals in Connecticut, a state with roughly one-fifth the population of New York, registered more than 50,000 assault-style weapons after similar legislation was passed there in April 2013.
Law enforcement experts have estimated that there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapon in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.
Many, indeed. Sounds like about a less-than-five percent compliance rate. The Daily News has lots of breakdown of where in the state these pathbreaking, strange folk who decided to actually comply come from.
J.D. Tuccille has been on this unfolding story here at Reason for years now. Things to recall from his past coverage include the fact that governments themselves, by regularly following up registrations with confiscations, make citizens strongly inclined to violate such laws; and let's not forget the state's past attempts to keep us from having any idea how many people were complying. Now we know.
California set up a registry to help law enforcement go door to door and confiscate guns from anyone who wasn't legally allowed to own them anymore and they've been working on it for the past few years but now they've run out of money for the program and it's still not finished.
Confiscating Guns, More Costly and Difficult than Legislators Think
California's door-to-door gun confiscation program on the "prohibited" runs into funding problems.
Brian Doherty|Mar. 17, 2016 8:03 pm
Back in 2013, as I reported then, California launched a program to literally go door to door and confiscate guns owned by people whose legal right to own them had been superseded by some later action or declaration, such as criminal convictions, restraining orders, or being adjudicated mentally ill.
Turns out that kind of pretty arbitrary, in the overwhelming majority of times utterly unhelpful for public safety, action can cost big bucks.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?
Attorney General of California Kamala Harris crowed about the law and the practice in a press release last month, in which she made some overblown claims:
During the past 30 months, the Bureau of Firearms has conducted over 18,608 APPS [Armed Prohibited Persons System] cases, and has taken 335 assault weapons, 4,549 handguns, 4,848 long-guns, and 43,246 rounds of ammunition off the streets from those who illegally possessed them....
“Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our communities safer,” said Attorney General Harris.....
"Removing weapons from those on the Armed and Prohibited Persons list targets law breakers and makes our community a safer place," said Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown.
The two above statements are very largely unproven, and it would be interesting for them to discuss how many of the people they took the weapons from had ever harmed or threatened anyone with them.
Unsurprisingly, regarding the funding issues discussed above, Attorney General Harris is proud that she:
sponsored SB 819 (Leno) to allow the Department of Justice to use existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers (“DROS fees”) for purposes of regulatory and enforcement activities related to firearms, including management of APPS. This went into effect January 2012. In 2013, Attorney General Harris sponsored SB 140 (Leno) to appropriate $24 million in funding from the DROS Account to help support the APPS program; this urgency legislation went into effect immediately in May 2013. In 2015, Attorney General Harris submitted a letter urging the legislature to make funding to the APPS program permanent.
Prestor Jon wrote: Local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
Hmmmm, I wonder why it isn't working then? ... Very mysterious.
Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register assault weapons ... Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their assault weapons.
That data flies in the face of most gun owners being "law abiding", when over 80% fail to comply with the law.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?
I like how people with "criminal convictions, restraining orders, adjudicated mental illness" are suddenly described as "citizens getting their weapons taken away". Those figures don't sound bad at all, if we could reduce carbon emissions by half in one year I'd be impressed. It can take a lot of time and money to fix social problems, so what? That doesn't mean we should ignore them, and pass them on to future generations.
I honestly thought door-to-door gun confiscation was never really going to happen. This was before I really started to collect anything more than my childhood 10-22 and Winchester 1300 shotgun.
Then Hurricane Katrina happened. The local police were illegally entering peoples' homes and forcefully disarming them. They confiscated (illegally) thousands of firearms in the name of "public safety". These were legally owned weapons and not abused. They even managed to beat down a few elderly citizens in the process.
After a lawsuit the Federal Government ordered New Orleans police to not only stop, but return the guns. The Mayor and Police Chief denied it ever happened, until video, photographs, and multiple witnesses proved otherwise. Even after the cease and desist order they continued the confiscation until Federal officers arrived to force the situation.
The weapons were basically mistreated. They were not kept in climate controlled conditions, they were banged together, and shoddy records meant the citizens needed serial numbers of the weapons to retrieve them. To this day the police refuse to return some of them, or compensate for their value.
And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
r_squared wrote: And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
If your guns are on a registry it opens the door for confiscation.
I do not want the government to know how many and what kind of guns I own. It a violation of right to privacy and the existence of the registry also defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment(a means to resist government tyranny shouldn't be something they are able to track)
Kilkrazy wrote: Was there no-one who resisted the police's illegal action at gunpoint?
There were a couple people that did resist. Several were arrested, even for simply refusing to open their doors for the police. One elderly woman got the beating of her life and a shotgun butt to the chin and eye for demanding to see a warrant. No charges were ever filed on any officer. Apparently a number of the nicer weapons "disappeared" into the private collections of the officers themselves.
The one bright side to all of this was that the National Guard basically refused to help the local police in these actions. They realized that not only was it illegal, but a complete waste of time considering they had bigger issues to deal with.
If the Government wants guns out of the hands of criminals I think there is one VERY easy solution even the most right-leaning NRA member would be open to.
Open up the criminal background check database to EVERYONE. Why is this thing limited to only those with an FFL license in the first place? If you want to do a private transfer and want to do a check on the guy you should be able to simple whip out your smartphone, log onto a website, and run a check, free of charge.
Prestor Jon wrote: Local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
Hmmmm, I wonder why it isn't working then? ... Very mysterious.
Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register assault weapons ... Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their assault weapons.
That data flies in the face of most gun owners being "law abiding", when over 80% fail to comply with the law.
In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.
Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?
I like how people with "criminal convictions, restraining orders, adjudicated mental illness" are suddenly described as "citizens getting their weapons taken away". Those figures don't sound bad at all, if we could reduce carbon emissions by half in one year I'd be impressed. It can take a lot of time and money to fix social problems, so what? That doesn't mean we should ignore them, and pass them on to future generations.
Not very mysterious, citizens don't want to comply and law enforcement doesn't want to enforce the laws. The result is are registries that don't accomlish anything and are largely ignored by everyone.
GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.
He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.
“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.
Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.
Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.
The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.
In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.
In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.
And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).
“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.
This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.
Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.
Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.
A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.
Still, the state’s top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.
“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”
Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.
“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”
Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.
“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.
At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.
“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.
Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.
But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.
Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.
“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”
PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives
Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted
Apr 8, 2013
In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.
More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.
Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.
Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.
1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.
2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.
3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.
4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.
5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).
6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.
7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.
8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.
9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.
10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.
11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.
r_squared wrote: And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem? I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
Legal sales are already regulated to only legitimate responsible law abiding citizens.
The gov't has no right nor legitimate reason to track my property.
A nationwide registry would be expensive and raise the cost of legal gun ownership.
A registry would not solve any of the perceived problems. What is the problem you think a registry solves? And does the cost justify a registry as a solution?
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
cuda1179 wrote: If the Government wants guns out of the hands of criminals I think there is one VERY easy solution even the most right-leaning NRA member would be open to.
Open up the criminal background check database to EVERYONE. Why is this thing limited to only those with an FFL license in the first place? If you want to do a private transfer and want to do a check on the guy you should be able to simple whip out your smartphone, log onto a website, and run a check, free of charge.
Agreed. The federal govt already has NICS set up and could open it up to the public tomorrow if they wanted to and it would have the effect they claim to want.
cuda1179 wrote: If the Government wants guns out of the hands of criminals I think there is one VERY easy solution even the most right-leaning NRA member would be open to.
Open up the criminal background check database to EVERYONE. Why is this thing limited to only those with an FFL license in the first place? If you want to do a private transfer and want to do a check on the guy you should be able to simple whip out your smartphone, log onto a website, and run a check, free of charge.
Agreed. The federal govt already has NICS set up and could open it up to the public tomorrow if they wanted to and it would have the effect they claim to want.
Which is exactly my point. If this was really about "safety" than this is what they'd do. Unfortunately the real reason is control. They want to make own in a gun such a bourdon and so expensive that many simply give up. This is unfortunately often the poor and minorities, which are the most in need of guns for protection.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why didn't the people just shoot the police?
It's a tiny bit intimidating when a dozen officers show up at your place at 1 in the morning with weapons drawn.
So essentially this idea that guns are essential for protecting your FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOM from the evil authorities is a crock of gak.
I'm glad we've got that sorted out.
No, as mentioned, some people have trouble crossing the line. Some, not all. The old lady who got beat up? She was not the type who had a gun to defend herself from the cops. Ol' Boudreaux out in the bayou may have been a bit different.
I did a little chart comparing murder rates ( this is over-all murder rates, not gun deaths) of all the States in the US, plus Washington D.C. to gun ownership rates. What I found is actually quite interesting.
D.C. and Louisiana are statistical outliers. D.C. has, by far, the lowest gun ownership rates, but drastically the highest murder rate, more than double that of most of the other states.
Louisiana has a fairly high gun ownership rate, and a pretty high murder rate. The other states are basically all over the place.
The trend starts off with Hawaii at a low gun ownership rate (around 7%) and a low murder rate index of around 1.7. As gun ownership rises, so does the murder rate, until you reach Maryland (21% gun ownership, 6.5 murder index) then murders start to fall again until you reach Iowa and Vermont (roughly 43% gun ownership and a 1.5 murder index). After than murder rates start to slightly climb again.
Could it be that both gun control and gun rights activists are right? That murders are somewhat linked to gun ownership, but that the relationship is a Bell Curve, and not a direct proportion relation? Is gun ownership rates of 43% the magic number for repelling criminals without arming them too?
You can't look at the murder rate by state, you need look in urban areas vice rural areas. I suspect your murder rate in Louisiana is very much influenced by the cities.
r_squared wrote: And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
Legal sales are already regulated to only legitimate responsible law abiding citizens.
The gov't has no right nor legitimate reason to track my property.
A nationwide registry would be expensive and raise the cost of legal gun ownership.
A registry would not solve any of the perceived problems. What is the problem you think a registry solves? And does the cost justify a registry as a solution?
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
Don't they already track the ownership of your vehicles?
Are guns so sacrosanct that the idea that an easily concealed, portable firearm shouldn't be sold on without being registered? The initial purchaser may satisfy all the requirements, but what about the 2nd or third owner?
How on earth does a private citizen satisfy themselves that the person they are selling to satisfies the stringent requirements that they had to meet? How easy is it to check that someone contacting you from Craigslist is not banned from owning firearms? Is it not likely that, even if you as a seller did all you could to ensure you are selling to someone legally entitled to own a weapon, that that weapon could eventually end up in the hands of a criminal, purchased from someone who has not done any checks at all?
The anecdote about the police seizing firearms was interesting. It seems that owning firearms didn't prevent the state from forcing themselves on those individuals.
Equally interesting was that it took federal govt representatives to come to the rescue, and defended the rights of the citizens against some state level officials. Perhaps the Govt isn't the big bad wolf after all?
Prestor Jon wrote: To date those registries have abysmal participation rates and local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
Before a registry can be effective it would require implementation at a federal level instead of state level. Already purchased guns would have to be voluntary, you can't force registration or use it to take guns away by searching houses looking for them. It is wasted money and manpower. Essentially have to treat those guns as grandfathered in and deal with them separately as each situation arises. Any new purchases private, retailer and dealer (which is why these have to be implemented at a federal level) are documented, tracked and handled.
However before that happens we need to plug the gaps and wholes with the NICS. There is a large gap between what crimes should and are reported to the NICS. Not everyone reports everything to the database and thus criminals that shouldn't pass a background check, still can, since the state didn't provide those records. A lot of that is the red tape between federal and state information, it isn't exactly a two-way street of mutual sharing. Until that is properly federally mandated and resolved then no registry will work properly. The cost for the registry isn't that much if it wasn't for the inflated costs and structuring of the process. 10 years ago is a different story, compared to today, with the age of technology with cheaper, better, faster and almost everything digital some of the gaps can be plugged. That also does mean as a boost local database, law enforcement police infrastructure gets an upgrade which improves things across the board.
Grey Templar wrote: If your guns are on a registry it opens the door for confiscation.
If you honestly believe the government is going to confiscate the guns, they don't need a registry to do that. The amount of time and manpower to do that at a national level is astronomical and not even realistically possible. They already know you have guns, at least for the initial background check done at some point hopefully. The amount or type of guns shouldn't suddenly make them now want to confiscate them or create some devious plan to confiscate them, it isn't possible.
cuda1179 wrote: Could it be that both gun control and gun rights activists are right? That murders are somewhat linked to gun ownership, but that the relationship is a Bell Curve, and not a direct proportion relation? Is gun ownership rates of 43% the magic number for repelling criminals without arming them too?
It is always a little bit of both as we're talking about a huge category, not a particular type of crime like murder, suicide, accidental, police involved but the whole category of gun violence and death. There isn't one solution or one reason that will reduce them across all categories. It is a bunch of little things adding together to make an impact. Most sides tend to get stuck in a loop first with statistics then when people talk gun control, somehow people translate that to 'take guns away' which both sides do this.
You can't compare flat rates as you have to look at the urban vs rural area and break it out further than simply by state. Then you need to measure in crime rates of those areas as well, not mixed together with the stats but in parallel so you can see correlation with some.
CptJake wrote: You can't look at the murder rate by state, you need look in urban areas vice rural areas.
r_squared wrote: And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
Legal sales are already regulated to only legitimate responsible law abiding citizens.
The gov't has no right nor legitimate reason to track my property.
A nationwide registry would be expensive and raise the cost of legal gun ownership.
A registry would not solve any of the perceived problems. What is the problem you think a registry solves? And does the cost justify a registry as a solution?
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
Don't they already track the ownership of your vehicles?
There are state registries for vehicles because states tax vehicles. Vehicle registration is for states to know whom to send the tax bill, where to send the tax bill and how much to invoice. Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention. States don't tax guns so there are no registries for all guns in all states.
Prestor Jon wrote: To date those registries have abysmal participation rates and local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
Before a registry can be effective it would require implementation at a federal level instead of state level. Already purchased guns would have to be voluntary, you can't force registration or use it to take guns away by searching houses looking for them. It is wasted money and manpower. Essentially have to treat those guns as grandfathered in and deal with them separately as each situation arises. Any new purchases private, retailer and dealer (which is why these have to be implemented at a federal level) are documented, tracked and handled.
However before that happens we need to plug the gaps and wholes with the NICS. There is a large gap between what crimes should and are reported to the NICS. Not everyone reports everything to the database and thus criminals that shouldn't pass a background check, still can, since the state didn't provide those records. A lot of that is the red tape between federal and state information, it isn't exactly a two-way street of mutual sharing. Until that is properly federally mandated and resolved then no registry will work properly. The cost for the registry isn't that much if it wasn't for the inflated costs and structuring of the process. 10 years ago is a different story, compared to today, with the age of technology with cheaper, better, faster and almost everything digital some of the gaps can be plugged. That also does mean as a boost local database, law enforcement police infrastructure gets an upgrade which improves things across the board.
Grey Templar wrote: If your guns are on a registry it opens the door for confiscation.
If you honestly believe the government is going to confiscate the guns, they don't need a registry to do that. The amount of time and manpower to do that at a national level is astronomical and not even realistically possible. They already know you have guns, at least for the initial background check done at some point hopefully. The amount or type of guns shouldn't suddenly make them now want to confiscate them or create some devious plan to confiscate them, it isn't possible.
If at the beginning of a national registry you grandfather in over 300,000,000 guns as not needing to be registered then the registry is never going to be complete and you're going to have millions of unregistered guns in private hands for decades. Why should the federal govt spend billions on a project that would be doomed from the start?
r_squared wrote: And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.
I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.
What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.
Legal sales are already regulated to only legitimate responsible law abiding citizens.
The gov't has no right nor legitimate reason to track my property.
A nationwide registry would be expensive and raise the cost of legal gun ownership.
A registry would not solve any of the perceived problems. What is the problem you think a registry solves? And does the cost justify a registry as a solution?
If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
Don't they already track the ownership of your vehicles?
Are guns so sacrosanct that the idea that an easily concealed, portable firearm shouldn't be sold on without being registered? The initial purchaser may satisfy all the requirements, but what about the 2nd or third owner?
How on earth does a private citizen satisfy themselves that the person they are selling to satisfies the stringent requirements that they had to meet? How easy is it to check that someone contacting you from Craigslist is not banned from owning firearms? Is it not likely that, even if you as a seller did all you could to ensure you are selling to someone legally entitled to own a weapon, that that weapon could eventually end up in the hands of a criminal, purchased from someone who has not done any checks at all?
The anecdote about the police seizing firearms was interesting. It seems that owning firearms didn't prevent the state from forcing themselves on those individuals.
Equally interesting was that it took federal govt representatives to come to the rescue, and defended the rights of the citizens against some state level officials. Perhaps the Govt isn't the big bad wolf after all?
Frankly, until you answer the highlighted questions, who gives a gak if vehicles are registered? You've already been told WHY those are (taxes which in turn are supposed to pay for upkeep on roads...)
Because it stops people who should not have access to firearms, getting access to firearms, and you've got to start somewhere?
The initial cost of any project is usually the largest part, but after the initial cost, it becomes much, much less to maintain that structure.
Arguably, a Federal registry might help reduce other costs once set up. For example, I believe that the man hours saved for law enforcement alone could account for that.
And before anyone asks me to cite figures to support my argument, I can't, and I'm not going to try either. It hasn't been done, so I'm guessing that it could be easier for a police officer to trace registered firearms, than it is for them to trace unregistered firearms. On that supposition, it takes them less time to deal with that aspect of that particular range of possible offences, thus saving man hours, and therefore money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A registry of firearms doesn't infringe the 2nd ammendment.
r_squared wrote: Because it stops people who should not have access to firearms, getting access to firearms, and you've got to start somewhere? The initial cost of any project is usually the largest part, but after the initial cost, it becomes much, much less to maintain that structure. Arguably, a Federal registry might help reduce other costs once set up. For example, I believe that the man hours saved for law enforcement alone could account for that. And before anyone asks me to cite figures to support my argument, I can't, and I'm not going to try either. It hasn't been done, so I'm guessing that it could be easier for a police officer to trace registered firearms, than it is for them to trace unregistered firearms. On that supposition, it takes them less time to deal with that aspect of that particular range of possible offences, thus saving man hours, and therefore money.
How does it stop someone who should not have access from getting access?
Hint: It doesn't, not even a bit. It may make it easier in some cases to trace a gun used in a crime. Frankly, that is not a big enough issue to justify the cost (both in dollars and crap lawful owners would need to deal with).
There are state registries for vehicles because states tax vehicles. Vehicle registration is for states to know whom to send the tax bill, where to send the tax bill and how much to invoice. Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention. States don't tax guns so there are no registries for all guns in all states.
Actually, it depends on the state. Here in NY you also have to have your vehicle inspected every year(?) to make sure it's still roadworthy.
I will agree that it is not truley analogous, however.
Because, if all guns have to be registered to an owner, when a second hand gun is sold, that gun has to be registered to the new owner.
Depending on how the system is setup, it would either force the person selling the gun to do a background check of the individual they are selling to, which is not likely as no private citizen would have access to the neccessary resources, or once the gun is processed, and the person who bought the gun is discovered to be ineligible to own the weapon, the police could turn up and confiscate the weapon from the person who bought it illegally.
It automatically stops, or deters, sales to felons, or others who are ineligible to own a firearm.
There are state registries for vehicles because states tax vehicles. Vehicle registration is for states to know whom to send the tax bill, where to send the tax bill and how much to invoice. Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention. States don't tax guns so there are no registries for all guns in all states.
Actually, it depends on the state. Here in NY you also have to have your vehicle inspected every year(?) to make sure it's still roadworthy.
I will agree that it is not truley analogous, however.
Here in NC registration and inspections used to be done separately because there were on separate expiration schedules but now they're combined for convenience. Registration can be attached to inspections but states could track inspections independent of registration tags if they chose. So I agree with your point and it's valid but it's not somethin that couldn't be done without registration.
r_squared wrote: Because, if all guns have to be registered to an owner, when a second hand gun is sold, that gun has to be registered to the new owner.
Depending on how the system is setup, it would either force the person selling the gun to do a background check of the individual they are selling to, which is not likely as no private citizen would have access to the neccessary resources, or once the gun is processed, and the person who bought the gun is discovered to be ineligible to own the weapon, the police could turn up and confiscate the weapon from the person who bought it illegally.
It automatically stops, or deters, sales to felons, or others who are ineligible to own a firearm.
That is so very wrong. The reason is pretty obvious too.
A 'felon' buyer has zero fething incentive to register his illegal gun.
Putting the burden on the seller starts to be a big burden to ownership, which for a constitutionally protected right, is a no no. And going back to the (poor) car analogy, I can sell (and have sold) cars I own and have no obligation to check the buyers driving record nor make sure they register the vehicle. I sign over the title, provide a bill of sale, and remove my tag.
Grey Templar wrote: If your guns are on a registry it opens the door for confiscation.
If you honestly believe the government is going to confiscate the guns, they don't need a registry to do that. The amount of time and manpower to do that at a national level is astronomical and not even realistically possible. They already know you have guns, at least for the initial background check done at some point hopefully. The amount or type of guns shouldn't suddenly make them now want to confiscate them or create some devious plan to confiscate them, it isn't possible.
IIRC Canada used their registry to confiscate certain guns, so yes it is possible.
Besides, I think the fact the government would find it practically impossible to confiscate weapons using a registry list isn't a good argument that such a registry is an ok thing to have. Its something that should be opposed on principle and not just on weather or not its a practical thing that will be used for confiscation.
The only reason I brought up the registration of vehicles was to provide an example of a material possession that must be registered with the government as CptJack stated that the government has no legal right to track his personal property.
The use of the registration in this context is irrelevant.
r_squared wrote: Because, if all guns have to be registered to an owner, when a second hand gun is sold, that gun has to be registered to the new owner.
Depending on how the system is setup, it would either force the person selling the gun to do a background check of the individual they are selling to, which is not likely as no private citizen would have access to the neccessary resources, or once the gun is processed, and the person who bought the gun is discovered to be ineligible to own the weapon, the police could turn up and confiscate the weapon from the person who bought it illegally.
It automatically stops, or deters, sales to felons, or others who are ineligible to own a firearm.
No it doesn't. Even with that kind of registry a person can legally buy a gun and have it registered then sell it to someone else in a face to face sale for money without performing a background check or even worse knowingly sell it to a prohibited person. Then that person files a lost/stolen gun report with the police. If the gun turns up at a crime scene there'd be no evidence that the gun was sold illegally, certainly not enough to prosecute the former owner.
r_squared wrote: The only reason I brought up the registration of vehicles was to provide an example of a material possession that must be registered with the government as CptJack stated that the government has no legal right to track his personal property.
The use of the registration in this context is irrelevant.
Jake, not Jack. And I've owned vehicles I never registered (trucks used on the property). Gov't had nothing to do with me owning them, or me selling them when I did.
r_squared wrote: Because, if all guns have to be registered to an owner, when a second hand gun is sold, that gun has to be registered to the new owner.
Depending on how the system is setup, it would either force the person selling the gun to do a background check of the individual they are selling to, which is not likely as no private citizen would have access to the neccessary resources, or once the gun is processed, and the person who bought the gun is discovered to be ineligible to own the weapon, the police could turn up and confiscate the weapon from the person who bought it illegally.
It automatically stops, or deters, sales to felons, or others who are ineligible to own a firearm.
That is so very wrong. The reason is pretty obvious too.
A 'felon' buyer has zero fething incentive to register his illegal gun.
Putting the burden on the seller starts to be a big burden to ownership, which for a constitutionally protected right, is a no no. And going back to the (poor) car analogy, I can sell (and have sold) cars I own and have no obligation to check the buyers driving record nor make sure they register the vehicle. I sign over the title, provide a bill of sale, and remove my tag.
Yes a felon has no interest in registering the gun, but anyone who sells the gun would have a legal obligation to notify the change of ownership. If someone would be to held liable for selling a weapon to a felon, then that would mean that the casual sales environment currently enjoyed would be dramatically curtailed.
I for one would want to see some official ID and documentation if I was to sell a gun to someone I didn't know.
At the moment, your current system does absolutely nothing to stop the purchase of 2nd hand weapons by criminals. A registry would seriously dent the free availability of weapons to the criminal fraternity as they would have to rely on the black market, rather than Craigslist, or a large 2nd hand gun sales environment.
r_squared wrote: The only reason I brought up the registration of vehicles was to provide an example of a material possession that must be registered with the government as CptJack stated that the government has no legal right to track his personal property.
The use of the registration in this context is irrelevant.
Actually they still don't have a right to track a car, even a registered one.
Registration only applies to a vehicle you wish to operate on a public road, the same with drivers licenses, and then only because that vehicle needs to be taxed to pay for those public roads. If a vehicle is operated on private lands then no registration is required, nor is a drivers license required either.
If a cop sees you have expired tags on a vehicle sitting on your private property(or even being driven on your private property) he can't give you a ticket.
r_squared wrote: Because, if all guns have to be registered to an owner, when a second hand gun is sold, that gun has to be registered to the new owner.
Depending on how the system is setup, it would either force the person selling the gun to do a background check of the individual they are selling to, which is not likely as no private citizen would have access to the neccessary resources, or once the gun is processed, and the person who bought the gun is discovered to be ineligible to own the weapon, the police could turn up and confiscate the weapon from the person who bought it illegally.
It automatically stops, or deters, sales to felons, or others who are ineligible to own a firearm.
No it doesn't. Even with that kind of registry a person can legally buy a gun and have it registered then sell it to someone else in a face to face sale for money without performing a background check or even worse knowingly sell it to a prohibited person. Then that person files a lost/stolen gun report with the police. If the gun turns up at a crime scene there'd be no evidence that the gun was sold illegally, certainly not enough to prosecute the former owner.
So in order to defeat the system, that person has to commit fraud and become a criminal?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not going to argue about the registration of vehicles, as I mentioned it was only to give an example of property that is registered with the government.
The registry of guns would involve a completely different system to be created, one where it would be mandatory I all instances, and within the law. If a gun dealership must do mandatory check on you before you can buy a gun, then it stands that that is the expected standard of transferred ownership,
At the moment, your current system does absolutely nothing to stop the purchase of 2nd hand weapons by criminals. A registry would seriously dent the free availability of weapons to the criminal fraternity as they would have to rely on the black market, rather than Craigslist, or a large 2nd hand gun sales environment.
What mythical 'large 2nd hand gun sales environment' are you thinking exists?
And Craigslist is not the gun market you pretend it is.
Again, you want to impose an expensive burden on legal ownership, and the VERY few cases it would do what you want it to do are just not worth the infringement of a constitutionally protected right.
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Prestor Jon wrote: If at the beginning of a national registry you grandfather in over 300,000,000 guns as not needing to be registered then the registry is never going to be complete and you're going to have millions of unregistered guns in private hands for decades. Why should the federal govt spend billions on a project that would be doomed from the start?
I did mention the first step of patching the wholes in the NICS database first. 300,000,000 doesn't equate to 300 million different owners. There will be many people that will register without an issue, there will be a lot that won't as well. Registry does include gun clubs and ranges that have a large collection of guns already. As people commit crimes guns are confiscated. The only real difference is when those guns get back in circulation they can better track how that happened, if it happened from someone with law enforcement who was bad as well. When someone sells through private sales or to pawn shops, those guns are entered at that time. You could also do something similar to what Australia did in a type of buyback, not actually buyback the gun but provide a tax break/kicker or whatever to those that do register.
For one people shouldn't let the government pretend it will cost billions to create this type of project. That is a different issues. There are too many things that the government says will cost X dollars and the immediate response is, "Wow that is a lot, let's not do that.". When it should be, "This is an age when we can break down most of these costs and not accept a 1000% markup on something".
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
At the moment, your current system does absolutely nothing to stop the purchase of 2nd hand weapons by criminals. A registry would seriously dent the free availability of weapons to the criminal fraternity as they would have to rely on the black market, rather than Craigslist, or a large 2nd hand gun sales environment.
What mythical 'large 2nd hand gun sales environment' are you thinking exists?
And Craigslist is not the gun market you pretend it is.
Again, you want to impose an expensive burden on legal ownership, and the VERY few cases it would do what you want it to do are just not worth the infringement of a constitutionally protected right.
I was under the impression that there were second hand gun sales committed by private citizens throughout the United States on a daily basis? Given the large population, I would have thought that would equate to a large sales environment.
Your constitutionally protected rights are not infringed by a registry, you can still own a firearm, as long as you are not a felon. The registry helps stop those individuals without that constitutionally protected right from owning a firearm.
CptJake wrote: If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.
CptJake wrote: If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.
You will also remember that a large number of the signers of the Constitution only signed the damn thing with the guarantee that a Bill of Rights would be added.
We would not have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.
Making the police's job a little easier(but still not tangible benefit) is a terrible excuse to trample on a Constitutional right.
Perhaps you'd like to remove the right to privacy as well so the police can search the residence of the last registered owner too, you know. Just so they can do their job right?
Grey Templar wrote: Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about the person registered a gun, then found it was stolen? Or are you talking about that in the process of an investigation, a gun that was registered was stolen and used in a crime?
There are a number of things that could happen, depending on what you mean and what they are investigating. In the situation where a person has a lot of guns, a lot of the time they don't even realize it was stolen. So at the very least it is reported, where there more stolen? Just like when a vehicle is stolen and used in a crime, they could look at acquaintances, other people and putting that "stolen item" case to the forefront instead of in a file sitting (if they knew it was stolen and reported). Most stolen items, unless a chain of break-ins in the area, are usually not by strangers. If there were other things stolen, and other areas reported, or if it was someone known, either way it puts them on the right track.
Does the person who had the gun stolen become liable for failure to store, keep, maintain their weapons properly? That really depends and is probably situational. There would have to be a proper case analysis done to figure out what would be appropriate for these situations.
Grey Templar wrote: And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
I don't think anyone said it creates a magical homing device. There is however an investigation process that can track with proper information, starting point, traveling routes that something ends up in someone's possession. Law enforcement utilize them track and find smugglering rings or operations, gangs and other criminals associated with it. At least until which point they hit a snag or trail is cold.
For example. Gun stolen in California, used in a crime in New York. In a lot of situations simply the gun being used in a crime in another city won't flag or cause the stolen report or even cross reference with it. It will sit in a evidence locker. That is more to do with depending on what the crime was and whose jurisdiction it was. A central database not defined by that allows a place to cross reference everything, which could trigger the stolen report and reopen the investigation into that. It also prevents someone from stealing the gun in California, but selling it privately in Texas, then having it stolen again or even sold illegally, making its way to New York. Part of the registry is making sure the NCIS is active. A central database should also have stolen guns reported to it, so as part of the check (if done legally) would identify it as stolen and hopefully prevent a crime. Law enforcement track stolen vehicles and parts through similar methods, even ones that have been to a chop shop via similar methods.
It isn't about stopping one crime or preventing one crime, as it is creating a system of accountability for buyers, sellers and centralized system for tracking without red tape between law enforcement agencies.
Does it still need some work? Absolutely, no system is perfect. What do you propose as a method to lower gun violence then or do you simply believe that everything although not great, is acceptable as it is?
Dark Severance wrote: What do you propose as a method to lower gun violence then or do you simply believe that everything although not great, is acceptable as it is?
Gun violence is already dropping faster than the stocks did in 2008. Without such a draconian infringement on personal rights, both 2nd and 4th amendment.
Given that the measures you propose would do nothing to lower gun crime any further and that it would involve seriously infringing on a Constitutional right I would say things are fully acceptable.
Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.
r_squared wrote: Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.
We don't have complete registries. You don't currently go into a database when you buy a gun. But yes, I would say the registries which do exist do indeed infringe on the 2nd amendment, both state and federal(which would be things like automatic weapons).
Grey Templar wrote: Making the police's job a little easier(but still not tangible benefit) is a terrible excuse to trample on a Constitutional right.
Perhaps you'd like to remove the right to privacy as well so the police can search the residence of the last registered owner too, you know. Just so they can do their job right?
Trample is a bit subjective. You don't honestly believe you have privacy in today's world? Or is it just that you don't want to provide the government an easier way to get information about you? There is absolutely nothing private in the world we live in today.
You are on this forum. You might think your anonymous and even if you use a fake name, email and everything else, you aren't anonymous. I am going to assume you have a job, car, drivers license, bank account, rewards card, facebook account just to list a few things. Maybe you don't have any of those things, not that there is anything wrong with that at all. But unless you are living completely off the grid and/or a hacker, then then you absolutely have the right to privacy... however you are kidding yourself if you really think you have it.
I am willing to accept a small loss of perceived privacy for a better and safer future. We won't get there today but I would sure like to take steps to get there. However I do recognize that is an opinion. That is one of the great things about this country. Someday though not everyone will agree to the same thing, but one day they might just as one day there was a country that said "Yep we should ban all guns." and they did so. Now personally I also don't believe banning guns is a proper solution so I am trying to think outside of the box to provide other avenues that doesn't remove rights but improves our living situations and environments.
What happens when a majority of the country does say and vote to ban all guns? Is it suddenly they took the rights away, so time to become a criminal and rise up against it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Gun violence is already dropping faster than the stocks did in 2008. Without such a draconian infringement on personal rights, both 2nd and 4th amendment.
Then you are of the side that accepts the current environment and statistics since they are dropping and thus makes it acceptable. The main thing is since you don't think there is an issue then I can't expect you to constructively come up with solutions, other than shooting holes in other peoples, since there doesn't appear to be an issue for you. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I don't agree with it completely but that is neither here or there.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.
It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.
Smacks wrote: You always argue your points well Vaktathi, exalted. I feel that we can probably find a lot to agree on in all of this. Perhaps that analogies are helpful for explaining things, but they don't constitute logical arguments. These car analogies seem to appear on both sides of the debate however.
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.
The problem is that there is a perception, with some merit to it, that such registries turn into "confiscation lists" or are used as mechanisms for bans. The 1986 Machinegun ban for example wasn't a ban on civilians owning machineguns, but, in effect, said that the NFA registry will not accept tax applications to register any new machineguns, permanently fixing the market of available weapons and essentially driving the prices up so that, aside from the wealthiest of people able to put down five or six figures for a firearm, they're effectively banned for most people. The NY SAFE Act registry & CA Assault Weapons ban registries are used to harass legal owners with letters about how the weapons they own are somehow special and how they're extra-liable for owning them, and in the case of the CA registry, had a magnificent cockup where, after getting everyone to register certain weapons, the DoJ came back around and said a certain version of SKS also was now considered an "assault weapon" and needed to be registered, but then it was decided that they couldn't legally add people to the registry after the ban date and so all the people who *did* register them had to surrender their weapons (despite them being no more dangerous or capable than many other weapons still available) and basically no recourse. Then there are issues with such registries having gigantic efficacy and maintenance problems, as I mentioned earlier in the thread (where my father is still on the CA registry despite no longer living there and having sold the weapons out of state like 15 or 16 years ago, and the ATF having lost gargantuan numbers of machinegun records). Meanwhile, for all the effort of maintaining these databases, the number of crimes solved using the information therein is practically nonexistent.
Sorry for the runon paragraph there...a little too much to drink tonight.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.
It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.
If gun training and safety courses become mandatory for ownership you should also make everyone take mandatory courses on Religion, Public speaking and debate, Privacy and how to protect your right to it, and How to keep soldiers from sleeping on your couch.
There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.
Breotan wrote: There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.
Especially if there was a federal CPL that had reciprocity in all 50 states.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
r_squared wrote: Which constitutional right are we talking about? Im not sure how a universal federal registry tramples on it if the first person to buy the gun must be registered.
As a Nation, you've already accepted the idea of guns being registered to an individual. So does that not currently infringe on the right? A federal registry would be an extension of the current system to include second hand gun sales between private individuals.
We don't have complete registries. You don't currently go into a database when you buy a gun. But yes, I would say the registries which do exist do indeed infringe on the 2nd amendment, both state and federal(which would be things like automatic weapons).
On the basis of your objection to the perceived infringement, wouldn't it follow that all registrations and checks should be dropped?
How does that affect your position on legitimate ownership?
Prestor Jon wrote: Vehicle registration has nothing to do with operator ability, safety, or crime prevention.
Except when investing a vehicle used in or with conjunction with a crime. Then it is used to look up YMME (year, make, model, engine) that been identified, cross reference owners, licenses, VINs, addresses to create a list of suspects to start investigating.
Starting out a gun registry couldn't be used like that because initially there would be a selection that would have to be grandfathered in. Over time those guns will weed themselves out of the system or become the only ones used in crimes. However video of someone utilizing X-rifle with Y scope or even simply a certain model of pistol identified in a crime, but the criminals were masked, could be used to cross reference possible suspects within the area.
Right, and what happens when the guns turn out to be stolen? Like the vast majority of guns used in crimes in the US. Such a registry is useless if the gun used in a crime is stolen.
And no, the rightful owner reporting the gun to be stolen doesn't do a thing to prevent a further crime from occurring. It doesn't activate some magical homing device so the cops know where the gun is. All reporting a gun stolen does is help you get your gun back if the police find it in the process of some other investigation, or it will just get locked up forever in some evidence locker.
A registry isn't meant to stop weapons being stolen, but it does help with identification of the weapon. Under your current system, that weapon could have been sold multiple times and only one name would be on it, the original owner, who the police would talk to. They might eventually trace the last owner or the weapon, and thus identify some useful information, such as a possible witness, location, date, time, or any other pertinent information.
With a registered weapon , the police can go immediately to the current owner to ascertain if they have any information that might help.
Damn it, here I go being stupid and jumping back into this mess of a discussion.
Under a registry, nothing would change. Private sales, especially illegal transfers among criminals, are unlikely to be reported under such a system. So, you're back to square one. An actual registry would be both a waste of time and money, since the current system of FFL maintained 4473s is already in place.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
Japan hasn't had widespread private ownership of weapons since the late 1500's, when Toyotomi Hideyoshi restricted weapons ownership to the warrior nobility under his dictatorship.
Britain has never had a culture of widespread gun ownership, and Australians have viewed gun ownership more as a practical manner than an enshrined right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.
The vast majority of "shall issue" jurisdictions require a course and proficiency demonstration before issuing a CCW.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Since I'm of the ideology that banning guns is not the answer, I do accept gun ownership is here to stay. It is definitely impractical to put it back in the bottle, unless there happens to be an event so big that everyone actually decides to do something different.
It however isn't impractical to try to come up with better ways to improve the system. Safety education and training definitely a viable solution to some things. However unless training, education somehow becomes mandatory for certain things and in repeated intervals it isn't a true solution.
The problem is that training, mandatory or not, isn't a magical solution to poor gun handling habits. Some of the worst offenders are military personnel and law enforcement officers. The very same people that many anti-gunners believe are the only ones "qualified" to possess firearms and use them defensively.
CptJake wrote: If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.
So quit trying to legislate or regulate away a constitutionally protected right and use the correct process and amend the constitution.
If gun training and safety courses become mandatory for ownership you should also make everyone take mandatory courses on Religion, Public speaking and debate, .
Pfft.. as if people would accept people -- their children even -- being required to attend facilities where they'd be taught such things !
Next thing you know they'd be given work to complete at home as well !
Kilkrazy wrote: The way to do that is to change people's minds on the issue, so they will help to amend the constitution.
Hence threads like this.
Except, that attitude change, as shown by more states opening up concealed carry, cases like Heller and so on, are going the opposite direction. Threads like this tend to be nothing but folks showing their willingness to curtail the rights of others because it would make them 'feel' good about 'doing something'. Even when that 'something' being done does not actually address the alleged problems.
CptJake wrote: If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.
The US Constitution was adopted and signed in September 1787. It was ratified on June 21, 1788. The original Constitution did not have the Second Amendment. An Amendment by its very nature is a "an addition or alteration made to the constitution, statute, or legislative bill or resolution. Amendments can be made to existing constitutions and statutes and are also commonly made to bills in the course of their passage through a legislature.
The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, 3 years after the actual the actual Constitution was created. It was part of the first ten amendments, but definitely not the last ones added to the Constitution and will be able to be modified, amended as allowed until which time we cease to be a country or the end of time, whichever happens first. Now will everyone agree or like what those amendments are, probably not. However there is a process that lets the government do just that providing it gets voted in.
So quit trying to legislate or regulate away a constitutionally protected right and use the correct process and amend the constitution.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.
Kilkrazy wrote: The way to do that is to change people's minds on the issue, so they will help to amend the constitution.
Hence threads like this.
Except, that attitude change, as shown by more states opening up concealed carry, cases like Heller and so on, are going the opposite direction. Threads like this tend to be nothing ...
All the more reason to work hard to change attitudes.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
These nations never had firearms ownership as widespread as the US (particularly Japan where firearms ownership by private individuals has never been anything but exceedingly rare, the genie never got out of the bottle so to speak), have much smaller populations, and different cultural attitudes not just towards firearms but to policing and government as well. They also have had very little domestic firearms production relative to the US, particularly in the last 60 or so years. There's a whole host of factors that are different.
There would need to be an even greater political will in the US than there ever was in these nations simply because the barriers they're starting out from for "putting the genie back in the bottle" are significantly higher. Looking at CA's program to go door to door confiscating firearms from supposed prohibited persons (nevermind that many people this program targeted were not in fact prohibited), the cost to the state per gun retrieved was about $2500-$3500 (not counting legal challenges & court costs), extrapolating that to the ~300/350 million + firearms in the US in a relatively simplistic manner, you'd be talking about ~700 Billion -~1.2 trillion. Theoretically possible, but practically impossible, and that's when they've already got lists of prohibited persons they're just checking off.
Breotan wrote: There are ways to promote gun safety and marksmanship training. Some jurisdictions make training a prereq for receiving a CPL, for instance. I would not be opposed for this to happen in all instances where someone requests a CPL.
Especially if there was a federal CPL that had reciprocity in all 50 states.
That's a horrible idea and I sincerely wish people would stop espousing it as a good idea. Concealed carry permits are a state issue and should remain one. The last thing I want is the federal govt usurping more power from the states and doing so on a matter I care about. I am happy with the carry permit process here in NC. It could be better but that's an issue that can be resolved here in the state. The last thing I want is for hundreds of anti gun politicians in Congress from states like CA, NY, MA etc messing with my concealed carry permit. The ATF screws up enough as it is the last thing I want is for them to be in control of every concealed carry permit in the country.
In theory national carry could be nice. Being able to carry in any state, with one set of rules across the board, not having to worry about reciprocity and where you can carry in NY vs where you can carry in NC or WA, that would be super rad, and could have a lot of pluses for people living in "may issue" states.
The problem is that it could also effectively kill carry options if it turns out to be run akin to CA or NY's CHL practices or is run anything like NFA items.
In theory, lots of cool stuff about it, but lots of potential downsides as well.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.
So, it's a non-starter.
I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.
Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.
So, it's a non-starter.
I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.
Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.
Right, it'd never even get to that point.
See Colorado in 2012/14 when they passed the restrictive gun laws. The electorate voted their asses out afterwards.
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Britain, Australia and Japan have successfully put the genie back in the bottle. It's hard to believe that the USA could not manage it, if the political will existed
The current status is that according to Gallup, 75% of the population think the law as it stands is broadly adequate. Until the people change their mind, nothing will happen.
If there were anything that can cause the Second Civil War... you could do no worst then try repealing the 2nd/take away gun ownership.
So, it's a non-starter.
I've refuted this before, but it would not, simpy because of how our amendment system works. To remove an amendment, you need a majority in both houses, and 2/3s of the states to ratify it. For that to happen, you need a vast majority in support. Those willing to go to armed conflict about it would be such a minority that it would have no effect.
Not only tha, even if they managed it today, with the opinions staying the way they are now, I have serious doubts of true civil war. Action by independent militia groups? Sure. States secseeding? Little chance.
Right, it'd never even get to that point.
See Colorado in 2012/14 when they passed the restrictive gun laws. The electorate voted their asses out afterwards.
How can you be so sure. It used to be illigal to be gay, now gay marriage is legal across the country. You have no idea what this country will be like 100-200 years from now. Hell, 50 years ago.
Note: I am not saying it will or should, only that it can.
Dark Severance wrote: I'm not arguing anything, I was having a discussion. I'm not angry or heated about this discussion but it is a debate/conversion.
And you've been very polite, and thankyou for that, but at the same time you keep talking around the really basic facts of this. You ended going back in to definition discussions about spree killings vs mass shootings, and it just doesn't matter. There's no sensible argument that spree killings and mass shootings have different motivations or causes. They have different definitions in different organisations but those are purely bureaucratic things.
What remains that absolute, basic most important thing is that however you describe or review the issue, whether there's one victim, two victims, three victims or more, in the developed world the problem of gun violence is massively more common in the US.
I am curious how it ends up because they are seeking a "mental competency" test. Current data only shows that less than 5% of gun homicides between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with mental illness. All the other shooters have something else going on that isn't defined by todays definition of "mental illness". Just they start to diagnose new mental illness due to technology and social media, for example selfies are classified as a mental disorder now.
This is an extremely good point. There's a lot of nonsense around the gun debate, and lots of scary sounding things with no basis in reality end up at the centre of new gun control measures. The focus on mental health checks is the new version of the old focus on 'assault weapons'.
I linked it because it is talking about the social aspects. There is a bit more in her book but it talks about the sociology of these people not connecting through normal means. They find a connection with these other shooters. It is why you have the manifesto, the similar posed pictures.
Yeah, that was the point made in The New Yorker piece, and it was a very good point. But the WaPo piece didn't really cover that some ground, it just said the shooters were from the margins of society, and well, you know, duh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I did a little chart comparing murder rates ( this is over-all murder rates, not gun deaths) of all the States in the US, plus Washington D.C. to gun ownership rates. What I found is actually quite interesting.
D.C. and Louisiana are statistical outliers. D.C. has, by far, the lowest gun ownership rates, but drastically the highest murder rate, more than double that of most of the other states.
The states of the US have open borders, making state specific gun laws very limited in their value.
What you want to do is compare developed countries, look at the murder rate in the OECD countries. And the stats are really about as clear as anything ever is. All the other countries are tightly packed around 0.8 to 1.2. Canada is a slight outlier at 1.4. And then you have the US at 3.8 per 100,000. Almost four times the average, more than double the next most violent developed country.
And for all the talk about other issues, on almost all other crime the US is completely normal, even on the mild side. Muggings, assaults, break ins, car theft, the US has about as much as anyone else. But then on murder, you are out on your own. The reason is really very obvious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: Because it stops people who should not have access to firearms, getting access to firearms, and you've got to start somewhere? The initial cost of any project is usually the largest part, but after the initial cost, it becomes much, much less to maintain that structure.
I agree with you that there's no 2nd amendment infringement in a gun registry, but in terms of maintaining that registry it really would be an immense drain. Here in Australia, with 20 million people, far fewer guns per capita, and much greater state and federal police co-operation, the registry is so poorly maintained that it's utterly useless.
Trying to set up something like that for the US, with 300m guns and masses amounts of trading, it'd never be reliable enough to useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Likewise, maybe you should accept that gun ownership is here to stay and realize the impractical manner to "put the genie back in the bottle".
For all the energy spent on anti-gun rhetoric, instead, should be put towards safety education and training?
Just as its pretty dubious to think there's any kind of gun control legislation that could reduce the death toll, it's equally dubious to think that training and education would do any better. Accidents are a minor part of the death toll, and the ones that are rarely due to a lack of technical skill, but instead are the result of being too casual - gun safety is more discipline than knowledge and a half day training course won't build that discipline.
The reality is that US gun culture means lots of people get to have fun hunting, shooting and collecting every day, but it also comes with a death toll. That is the basic reality. Lots of fun things have a cost in lives. Alcohol, fast food, sugary drinks, guns.
It doesn't necessarily mean they have to banned, I think we need to push back against the drive towards more and more safety laws, because a perfectly safe world is a perfectly boring one. But we need to be honest about the relationship between guns and deaths.
The Latest: Police want charge for mother shot by 4-year-old Mar. 22, 2016 2:42 PM EDT
Police are recommending a misdemeanor charge for the mother of a 4-year-old boy who got a hold of her handgun and shot her as they were riding in a pickup truck.
Putnam County Sheriff's Capt. Gator DeLoach said Tuesday that Jamie Gilt put a loaded gun underneath the front seat and the weapon slid into the back where her son Lane was riding in a booster seat. Authorities said the child had recently learned how to unbuckle himself and picked up the gun. The boy fired through the front seat, hitting his mother in the back. She was in the hospital but DeLoach wasn't sure if she was still there or her current condition.
Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested.
The state's child welfare agency is also investigating the March 8 shooting.
___
10:20 a.m.
Police in Florida will discuss the results of their investigation into the shooting of mother by her 4-year-old boy who shot his mother in the back after getting ahold of her loaded gun.
The sheriff's office is scheduled to address reporters Tuesday afternoon about its criminal inquiry into the mother, Jamie Gilt. She's apparently a gun lover who made numerous social media postings about gun rights. She's been hospitalized since the March 8 incident.
She was shot on the back while driving after the boy got hold of the loaded gun and fired through the driver's seat.
The 31-year-old mother could face charges of leaving a weapon unsecured and improperly stored, but authorities have said she legally owned the firearm.
Florida's Department of Children and Families also is investigating.
The Latest: Police want charge for mother shot by 4-year-old Mar. 22, 2016 2:42 PM EDT
Police are recommending a misdemeanor charge for the mother of a 4-year-old boy who got a hold of her handgun and shot her as they were riding in a pickup truck.
Putnam County Sheriff's Capt. Gator DeLoach said Tuesday that Jamie Gilt put a loaded gun underneath the front seat and the weapon slid into the back where her son Lane was riding in a booster seat. Authorities said the child had recently learned how to unbuckle himself and picked up the gun. The boy fired through the front seat, hitting his mother in the back. She was in the hospital but DeLoach wasn't sure if she was still there or her current condition.
Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested.
The state's child welfare agency is also investigating the March 8 shooting.
___
10:20 a.m.
Police in Florida will discuss the results of their investigation into the shooting of mother by her 4-year-old boy who shot his mother in the back after getting ahold of her loaded gun.
The sheriff's office is scheduled to address reporters Tuesday afternoon about its criminal inquiry into the mother, Jamie Gilt. She's apparently a gun lover who made numerous social media postings about gun rights. She's been hospitalized since the March 8 incident.
She was shot on the back while driving after the boy got hold of the loaded gun and fired through the driver's seat.
The 31-year-old mother could face charges of leaving a weapon unsecured and improperly stored, but authorities have said she legally owned the firearm.
Florida's Department of Children and Families also is investigating.
"Police say they are recommending a charge of allowing a child access to a firearm. He says it will be up to prosecutors to decide whether to file the charge. She has not been arrested. "
That sounds a lot like a reckless endangerment charge, which isn't something to sneeze at.
Good. There are so many options available nowadays to people who want to carry a weapon in their vehicle safely. There is literally no excuse whatsoever for simply putting your gun underneath the seat. There are tons of different options for holsters and car storage: console holsters, seat holsters, etc. So many ways to safely and securely travel with a handgun accessible to her and not her child, if she had taken the very small effort to actually do it right.
Hordini wrote: Good. There are so many options available nowadays to people who want to carry a weapon in their vehicle safely. There is literally no excuse whatsoever for simply putting your gun underneath the seat. There are tons of different options for holsters and car storage: console holsters, seat holsters, etc. So many ways to safely and securely travel with a handgun accessible to her and not her child, if she had taken the very small effort to actually do it right.
Agreed. Keeping the gun in the car in such a dangerous manner is just plain stupid even without adding in the presence of the child. A loose gun sliding around the floor under the front seat and into the back seat area would be of no use to her if she ran into a situation where she needed it. I hope the DA hits her with a charge that sticks and she suffers the legal consequences of her stupidity.
skyth wrote: But making someone use extra equolipment to make sure that the gun is secure is infringing on the right to bear arms...
How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either. She is in trouble for failing to handle her pistol responsibly and keep it out of the hands of a child and from being discharged negligently. She could have duct taped it to her center console and if it accomplished the task of keeping it secured from negligent discharges and out of the hands of children then she wouldn't be in trouble right now.
Prestor Jon wrote: [How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either.
What you say is true in spirit, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but it most definitely often is very specific about transporting firearms. I don't know the patchwork of every states laws regarding transporting firearms, but I can definitely tell you that in Iowa, there are very specific rules about legally transporting firearms in a car. The code section is confusingly written, so I'll just summarize: if you have a pistol in a car, it must be unloaded, in a closed container (case is fine), in a way that's not accessible from the passenger compartment (in a trunk). I also studied up on the state laws of states I was travelling through where I might go shooting, and I can tell you they are very similar in, for example, Tennessee at the time I was there - firearms must be stored in the trunk unloaded with ammunition separately.
In both state's cases, and presumably in this woman's case, these restrictions don't apply if you have a concealed carry permit. This is where the latter element you bring up comes up, you can't endanger children and be negligent. However, unless you have a CCW, it's not a grey area of common sense; the law has very specific proscriptions.
Prestor Jon wrote: [How you go about securing your firearms is an open ended requirement. What is being penalized is the failure of properly securing them so that they do not cause harm through negligence and/or child endangerment. The law doesn't state that a person has to use X type of holster in Y manner to secure a firearm in a car, it says that you can't have it unsecured in a way that is negligent and dangerous and you can't endanger a child with it either.
What you say is true in spirit, and I don't mean to be pedantic, but it most definitely often is very specific about transporting firearms. I don't know the patchwork of every states laws regarding transporting firearms, but I can definitely tell you that in Iowa, there are very specific rules about legally transporting firearms in a car. The code section is confusingly written, so I'll just summarize: if you have a pistol in a car, it must be unloaded, in a closed container (case is fine), in a way that's not accessible from the passenger compartment (in a trunk). I also studied up on the state laws of states I was travelling through where I might go shooting, and I can tell you they are very similar in, for example, Tennessee at the time I was there - firearms must be stored in the trunk unloaded with ammunition separately.
In both state's cases, and presumably in this woman's case, these restrictions don't apply if you have a concealed carry permit. This is where the latter element you bring up comes up, you can't endanger children and be negligent. However, unless you have a CCW, it's not a grey area of common sense; the law has very specific proscriptions.
You're right that was poor wording in my point. I was directing my response to the issue of the woman in the OP, who has a CCW permit, and therefore could have secured her pistol in a whole host of ways that could have prevented the pistol of sliding along the floorboards into a position where her son could play with it. You are absolutely right that states have distinct and specific requirements for the general transport of firearms and anyone driving through other states should look them up to avoid any noncompliance issues that can lead to very serious charges.
Related, ironically is...
Come on man, at least read your own posts, I've had more structured conversations with my dog.
