Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DarkLink wrote:
On a side note, just as many people were stabbed as shot, it looks like. The lawyer was shot and killed, two others were moderately/mildy injured by gunshots, one person was stabbed to death, another was stabbed and badly wounded but is stable, and another had less critical stab wounds.

Isla Vista Syndrome; if there is an incident where as many people are stabbed as are shot then the stabbings are ignored as if they never happened.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And the thing is, that if this was a nutter motivated by the gun control push, that it's just proving his point for him.

Not really. If anything, it proves that there is a legitimate need for self-defense.

So he's walking down the road, and someone unexpectedly shoots him in the head... Where exactly was there any opportunity for him to defend himself? And considering these people were injured in "crossfire", that would suggest at least one gang might have already been shooting back in "self defence" (which is their human right allegedly, and a gun the best tool for the job). I don't see how adding more guns and more crossfire to that situation, could have produced fewer casualties.

xraytango wrote:
So the legitimate question here would be, "would gun control legislation actually have stopped this, considering it was a shoot-out between two criminal elements?"

Perhaps if the gun control and been in place 50 years ago, across all the states, in tandem with a drive to get illegal guns off the streets, then you could probably arrive at a situation where it's very difficult for petty criminals to obtain guns (legally or illegally).

This seems to be where the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument falls flat on its face anyway. I certainly never heard of anyone getting "stabbed in the crossfire".

 Smacks wrote:
This seems to be where the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument falls flat on its face anyway. I certainly never heard of anyone getting "stabbed in the crossfire".

Hell, there's a reason it's called crossfire - you don't tend to fire knives!

Yes, there are such things as ballistic knives, but they're very rare and very illegal. Shut up. :-P

My question is if people who want gun control just want to stop gun violence or violent crime as a whole. Because I doubt strict US gun control will make street gangs just give up and go home.

 Smacks wrote:
This seems to be where the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument falls flat on its face anyway. I certainly never heard of anyone getting "stabbed in the crossfire".

Really? I'm pretty sure that the reports were of two gangs shooting each other, and gangs are typically comprised of people.

 Smacks wrote:

This seems to be where the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument falls flat on its face anyway. I certainly never heard of anyone getting "stabbed in the crossfire".

two seconds on google found one.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/06/22/house-party-stabbing-death-victim-identified/29098483/

That said, sure, a gun is more likely to cause collateral damage than a knife, but you'd be surprised how easy it is for someone slashing away with a blade to hit something they didn't intend as well.

They do tend to be less lethal though. Especially if it was just a random slash, not a stab.

xraytango wrote:
Criteria: Law abiding citizens follow the law (a bit self-defining there, sorry). Criminals are criminals because they are the antithesis of a law abiding citizen, hence they ignore/flaunt the law.

My take is that bad guys will do bad things no matter how many laws are on the books.

That assumes availability isn't a factor, which is a pretty big thing to leave out.

Now, whether reduced availability to criminals is enough of a positive to offset citizens being denied firearms for lawful use is up for debate, but you can't just assume that because criminals are willing to break the law to get guns then they will be as freely available whether guns are legal or not.

Given that illegal guns are very very easy to come by here I'd say removing legal supplies would do nothing.

Heck, you can make Zip guns with nothing more than some pipe, a nail, and some elastic.

It would take decades for the current supply of guns to dry up, and then we have our very porous border with mexico. The Cartels would start smuggling in weapons in addition to drugs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
NYC has severe gun problems (which is to say guns in the hands of criminals). Legislation that went in, what, 2 years ago probably wouldn't have even put a dent in it, even if it were all guns are illigal.

And especially so when New York has open borders with other states in the union. Unless you have customs officers searching cargo and private travel when it crosses state lines local bans won't do much of anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Isla Vista Syndrome; if there is an incident where as many people are stabbed as are shot then the stabbings are ignored as if they never happened.

Of the 12,765 murders in the US in 2012, 8,855 or 69% were with firearms. 1,589 or 12% were with knives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
My question is if people who want gun control just want to stop gun violence or violent crime as a whole. Because I doubt strict US gun control will make street gangs just give up and go home.

Of the 12,765 murders in the US, 871 were related to gangs. If the only murders in the US were gang killings, you'd be the most peaceful utopia the world have ever known.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that illegal guns are very very easy to come by here I'd say removing legal supplies would do nothing.

This was discussed in the other recent gun thread, it was a pretty interesting conversation. It became clear any kind of gun ban would take a while to have real effect on availabilty, but I'm not sure that it automatically follows that a long time delay means you shouldn't do it.

The real argument is that people get a lot of enjoyment out of lawful firearm use, enough to justify the deaths.

Heck, you can make Zip guns with nothing more than some pipe, a nail, and some elastic.

That's pretty silly, to be honest. Effectiveness, compactness, lethality and accuracy are kind of things that matter, you know?

It would take decades for the current supply of guns to dry up, and then we have our very porous border with mexico. The Cartels would start smuggling in weapons in addition to drugs.

Right now guns are smuggled the other way.

 sebster wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Criteria: Law abiding citizens follow the law (a bit self-defining there, sorry). Criminals are criminals because they are the antithesis of a law abiding citizen, hence they ignore/flaunt the law.

My take is that bad guys will do bad things no matter how many laws are on the books.

That assumes availability isn't a factor, which is a pretty big thing to leave out.

It also assumes a very black and white view of morality, where "law abiding" citizens never opportunistically break the law, and become criminals, which is pretty silly, and the opposite of what happens all the time. Criminals are not criminals because they are anyone's "antithesis", they are criminals because they broke the law, by definition. Before that, they are law abiding. How many times have we heard some kid, gunned down by police for knocking over a liquor store, described as "a good kid ... on his way to college" etc... I will agree that there are some people who are born or raised, so unhinged, they are almost destined for prison, but they do not necessarily reflect all (or even most) criminals.

Often the reason we make laws, is because laws can be an extention of our values as a society, it does not always have to be about impact. I don't particularly value people who are mentally unstable from operating a gun, regardless of the potential impact. Should we also legalize murder, because "law abiding citizens" don't kill people? That isn't how values work.

I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away. My problem with gun control people is that they seem to believe that the root cause of violence in the United States is the availability of firearms. While that may be a contributing factor it is short sighted to think that is the biggest factor. I would argue bigger factors to our high homicide rates are poverty and a failing mental health care system.

This isn't to say I'm against all gun control. Far from it. I think the sale of weapons needs to be more controlled. Like that crap about people can get firearms from events without any sort of background check. That needs to be cracked down on. I also think there should be some sort of registry where people with certain violent mental disabilities are barred from owning firearms along with more screening of mental issues. I am just saying that total gun ban would be ineffective in the long run at solving the high homicide rate.

I think talking about a gun ban in the sole context of preventing murders/shootings is a narrow way of looking at it.

People like to complain about police militarization in the US. Well, if we ban guns, gradually remove them from the streets, reduce overall gun crime, is there really a need for every local police department to be armed to the teeth? With bullet proof vests 24/7? Imagine if we also ended the war on drugs. Hell, our police forces could someday go the way of the London police force, walking around with just batons and flash lights. The entire dynamic of law enforcement changes in a society with much fewer guns.Security, public and private, becomes simpler in banks, schools, air ports, and anywhere else that has security concerns. Removing guns from American society would have huge ramifications much larger than just reducing gun related homicides.

Then again... No more firing ranges... The one down the street as Zombie targets!

 LordofHats wrote:
Hell, our police forces could someday go the way of the London police force, walking around with just batons and flash lights.

They still wear stab vests and have armed units on call. There's a number of tazers out there, but firing one of those is treated exactly the same as discharging a fire arm, so we don't have the trouble of cops zapping people just because they don't like the look of someone.
London is actually the most tooled up area for police. Pop down to Devon, head over to Norfolk or get lost in central Wales and there are areas where a single cop has hundreds of square miles to cover by themselves (I may be exaggerating a bit there).

Or if you really want to know what Brit cops are like, go and watch Hot Fuzz. It's a documentary I believe.

 TheCustomLime wrote:


This isn't to say I'm against all gun control. Far from it. I think the sale of weapons needs to be more controlled. Like that crap about people can get firearms from events without any sort of background check. That needs to be cracked down on.

Just to hop in here on this point, here's nothing special about gun shows that allows this, the loophole isn't really what people think it is. Any private party transfer (e.g. Bob selling a gun to his neighbor Jim or Susie selling a gun she no longer wants to her co-worker Jill) can be done without a background check. Doesn't matter if they're making the sale/trade at home, a gunshow, at work, or anywhere else. However, any gun sold by an FFL, which is to say pretty much any vendor at a gun show selling guns (beyond the odd collectible Luger or the like at the obligatory Nazi-stuff booth ), must go through a background check. Likewise, in many states, even private party transfers must get background checks.

Now, setting politics aside, the major non-political issues with forcing private party sales to go through a background check is that people can't access the background check system themselves, they must take the weapon to an FFL and have the FFL run the check, and of course pay the FFL to do so, necessitating extra cost in time, money, transportation, and hassle for the buyer and seller, and lots of minimally profitable "busy work" for the FFL that many have very little desire to do. Basically, it makes it a giant pain in the ass to actually sell a gun for all involved.

I also think there should be some sort of registry where people with certain violent mental disabilities are barred from owning firearms along with more screening of mental issues.

There are several problems with this. First, it will create an incentive for people with mental issues not to seek care. Second, getting *off* such a list if someone is past said mental issues would likely be a truly horrific nightmare if it's even possible at all. Third, getting put *on* such a list has all sorts of abusable and error-prone issues with it. Lastly, most people that have major mental issues and went on to commit shootings hadn't necessarily ever been seen by a mental health professional (as opposed to school administrators or guidance counselors and the like) and as such the right people may never make it onto such a list, as people receiving adequate psychological care aren't typically the ones doing terrible things.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think talking about a gun ban in the sole context of preventing murders/shootings is a narrow way of looking at it.

People like to complain about police militarization in the US. Well, if we ban guns, gradually remove them from the streets, reduce overall gun crime, is there really a need for every local police department to be armed to the teeth? With bullet proof vests 24/7?

Given that such equipment is frequently, if not usually, used in inappropriate situations in the first place, it's hard to see where they'd give them up. There's a number of other issues at work there. One will notice police departments did not feel such a need to be so heavily armed back when you could mail-order automatic weapons and have them delivered to your door. There's a host of perception, training, professional, cultural, and socio-economic issues that go way beyond guns.

Imagine if we also ended the war on drugs. Hell, our police forces could someday go the way of the London police force, walking around with just batons and flash lights.

To be fair, they're also pretty rare in the world in that regard, and the handful of nations with such police forces typically have much lower levels of violent crime in general, gun or no. Cultural differences also play a part. In Japan for instance, people simply don't fight the police the way they do in the US quite often, regardless of firearms, and you're not going to get people telling police to "get a warrant or get lost" to search a bag or purse the way you will in the US.

 LordofHats wrote:
Then again... No more firing ranges... The one down the street as Zombie targets!

I don't know that even something as extreme as a "gun ban", would necessarily mean firing ranges have to go. There is a clay pigeon shooting range just near me, I can go there and play with a gun all day long. I just can't walk around the supermarket with it. Even in the UK, there are lots of people who own and use guns for recreation or as part of their work. The only thing we don't allow is people owning a gun for the purpose of "in case they decide that they need to shoot someone". We don't want people have fights and shoot outs, with injuries and collateral damage. A citizen's duty is to avoid those situations and retreat from them whenever possible, not be armed and ready to blow someone away.

I guess that does allow for the situation where someone is trapped and unable to defend themselves, but that kind of no-win situation can also happen to gun owners in the US. I was reading recently about a guy who was shot right outside his gun range, and had all his guns stolen. or you could just be walking down the street and get shot in the head...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


This isn't to say I'm against all gun control. Far from it. I think the sale of weapons needs to be more controlled. Like that crap about people can get firearms from events without any sort of background check. That needs to be cracked down on.

Just to hop in here on this point, here's nothing special about gun shows that allows this, the loophole isn't really what people think it is. Any private party transfer (e.g. Bob selling a gun to his neighbor Jim or Susie selling a gun she no longer wants to her co-worker Jill) can be done without a background check. Doesn't matter if they're making the sale/trade at home, a gunshow, at work, or anywhere else.

That wouldn't happen with a car though (or maybe it would in the US I dunno), but here if I sell a car there is paperwork involved. I'm supposed to inform the DVLA that I sold the car, and record the date, the price, make and model, the registration number, and the names and addresses of the buyer and seller. It's not as easy as just selling your old warhammer stuff.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away. My problem with gun control people is that they seem to believe that the root cause of violence in the United States is the availability of firearms. While that may be a contributing factor it is short sighted to think that is the biggest factor. I would argue bigger factors to our high homicide rates are poverty and a failing mental health care system.

This isn't to say I'm against all gun control. Far from it. I think the sale of weapons needs to be more controlled. Like that crap about people can get firearms from events without any sort of background check. That needs to be cracked down on. I also think there should be some sort of registry where people with certain violent mental disabilities are barred from owning firearms along with more screening of mental issues. I am just saying that total gun ban would be ineffective in the long run at solving the high homicide rate.

1. Deaths by firearms have been declining for decades
2. The Gunshow Loophole you obliquely refer to is a myth. The only time background checks are not mandated is a private sale between individuals. Any FFL dealer must perform a background check
3. That "registry" is the NICS background check run by the FBI, and they are disbarred from owning firearms. HIPPA may cause conflicts with this though so looking at a way to strengthen this portion of the background check is a worthwhile venture

 Smacks wrote:
I don't know that even something as extreme as a "gun ban", would necessarily mean firing ranges have to go. There is a clay pigeon shooting range just near me, I can go there and play with a gun all day long. I just can't walk around the supermarket with it. Even in the UK, there are lots of people who own and use guns for recreation or as part of their work. The only thing we don't allow is people owning a gun for the purpose of "in case they decide that they need to shoot someone". We don't want people have fights and shoot outs, with injuries and collateral damage. A citizen's duty is to avoid those situations and retreat from them whenever possible, not be armed and ready to blow someone away.

I guess that does allow for the situation where someone is trapped and unable to defend themselves, but that kind of no-win situation can also happen to gun owners in the US. I was reading recently about a guy who was shot right outside his gun range, and had all his guns stolen. or you could just be walking down the street and get shot in the head...

No one here want's collateral damage either. Bystanders being wounded by people defending themselves is very, very rare (unless the NYPD is involved). Reading your post I think you are confused about how self-defense in the US works. There is a legitimate difference between able to defend yourself against a threat (or multiple threats) and being "ready to blow someone away". Most gun owners will tell you that the best fight they ever had was the one that they avoided.Unfortunately not all can be avoided.

And the UK's gun prohibition is now leading to even heavier restrictions whereby police firearms licensing employees want to ban: .22 semi-autos; magazine-fed shotguns; all 50-cals; section 2 certificates; free 1-for-1 variations; old spec deactivated firearms; antique firearms; and appeals to courts against police decisions. They also want power to enter without a warrant, and the ability to revoke a certificate for 6 months with a possibility of perpetual extensions via an internal (i.e. non-judicial not before the court) process.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
That wouldn't happen with a car though (or maybe it would in the US I dunno), but here if I sell a car there is paperwork involved. I'm supposed to inform the DVLA that I sold the car, and record the date, the price, make and model, the registration number, and the names and addresses of the buyer and seller. It's not as easy as just selling your old warhammer stuff.

In the US it pretty much is as easy as selling your old Warhammer stuff.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one here want's collateral damage either. Bystanders being wounded by people defending themselves is very, very rare (unless the NYPD is involved).

heh.

Reading your post I think you are confused about how self-defense in the US works. There is a legitimate difference between able to defend yourself against a threat (or multiple threats) and being "ready to blow someone away". Most gun owners will tell you that the best fight they ever had was the one that they avoided.Unfortunately not all can be avoided.

I think the only legitimate difference is one of persuasive language. It's like the difference between the ministry of defence and the ministry of war... It's exactly the same ministry. If you go into a shop and buy a gun for "home defense", the implication is that you are preparing and willing to shoot someone, who you have determined is a threat. You are making yourself ready to meet that threat with deadly force. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of someone who is earnestly planning to avoid and retreat.

To clarify, I personally don't support a gun ban. I do however think that the politics of guns in the US are horribly narrow minded on both sides, and focused heavily on, dare I say, outright brain dead arguments about overthrowing the government and "the founding father's would roll in their graves!"

Gun control shouldn't just be a discussion about how many people are killed using guns, or about some silly notion of tradition or abstract necessity, but about the effects that having so many guns and such easy access to them has on society at large, how those guns interact with other social issues like drugs, law enforcement, and economics, and what would happen were serious steps taken to curtail that. it's an important discussion and its one that isn't happening.

 LordofHats wrote:
To clarify, I personally don't support a gun ban. I do however think that the politics of guns in the US are horribly narrow minded on both sides, and focused heavily on, dare I say, outright brain dead arguments about overthrowing the government and "the founding father's would roll in their graves!"

Gun control shouldn't just be a discussion about how many people are killed using guns, or about some silly notion of tradition or abstract necessity, but about the effects that having so many guns and such easy access to them has on society at large, how those guns interact with other social issues like drugs, law enforcement, and economics, and what would happen were serious steps taken to curtail that. it's an important discussion and its one that isn't happening.

Get out of here! We don't want your sensible posts in an OT gun topic!

Dreadclaw69 wrote:And the UK's gun prohibition is now leading to even heavier restrictions whereby police firearms licensing employees want to ban: .22 semi-autos; magazine-fed shotguns; all 50-cals; section 2 certificates; free 1-for-1 variations; old spec deactivated firearms; antique firearms; and appeals to courts against police decisions. They also want power to enter without a warrant, and the ability to revoke a certificate for 6 months with a possibility of perpetual extensions via an internal (i.e. non-judicial not before the court) process.

The UK doesn't have a gun prohibition, we just have strict laws about possession of firearms. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by the bolded part, could you expand on that?

 -Shrike- wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:And the UK's gun prohibition is now leading to even heavier restrictions whereby police firearms licensing employees want to ban: .22 semi-autos; magazine-fed shotguns; all 50-cals; section 2 certificates; free 1-for-1 variations; old spec deactivated firearms; antique firearms; and appeals to courts against police decisions. They also want power to enter without a warrant, and the ability to revoke a certificate for 6 months with a possibility of perpetual extensions via an internal (i.e. non-judicial not before the court) process.

The UK doesn't have a gun prohibition, we just have strict laws about possession of firearms. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by the bolded part, could you expand on that?

I personally would like to see some citations for Dreadclaw's claims.

 LordofHats wrote:
To clarify, I personally don't support a gun ban. I do however think that the politics of guns in the US are horribly narrow minded on both sides, and focused heavily on, dare I say, outright brain dead arguments about overthrowing the government and "the founding father's would roll in their graves!"

Gun control shouldn't just be a discussion about how many people are killed using guns, or about some silly notion of tradition or abstract necessity, but about the effects that having so many guns and such easy access to them has on society at large, how those guns interact with other social issues like drugs, law enforcement, and economics, and what would happen were serious steps taken to curtail that. it's an important discussion and its one that isn't happening.

Legally purchasing guns is tightly controlled and regulated. Sure it's "easy" for criminals to illegally purchase guns the same way it's "easier" for criminals to illegally purchase drugs rather than obtain them from a pharmacy with a proper prescriptions and ID but it's always been "easier" to obtain something illegally.

We already have strict federal and state regulations requiring background checks, permits, licensing, tax stamps etc. We still can't, and won't ever, be able to control people or accurately predict their future actions and intentions. A person with a clean record can pass a background check and purchase a firearm but that doesn't mean that person won't ever commit a crime with that firearm in the future. However, since our founding principle for our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty" it's wrong to prejudge people and prohibit free law abiding citizens from owning a firearm when they've done nothing to disqualify themselves from using their individual right to make that choice for themselves. We've never been able to guarantee that people won't misuse the guns, knives, cars, etc. that they own and hurt others with them but we can only legally and morally justify punishing people after they've done something wrong not pre-emptively just in case they might do something wrong.

Nobody is pro murder or pro crime but we've established over the past several centuries a society that is founded on individual liberty, free will and the rule of law. We can only rely on the fact that the vast majority of people are decent and that our judicial system will punish those who are caught breaking the law to discourage wrongdoing and protect the populace. Pre-emptively punishing the law abiding majority in a doomed to fail attempt to prevent the small minority of lawbreakers from doing bad things is pointless.

You're right that guns are just a part of larger complex issues. Take drugs for example. Why do we have an illegal drug trade? Because people want to use/abuse drugs. Since there is a demand for drugs somebody will find a way to supply that demand, take their money and make a profit. Since the drugs in question are either illegal themselves or being obtained illegally the demand is serviced by criminal organizations. Now you have criminals making money in a lucrative multinational multibillion dollar trade so you have intense competition. Since you have competition between rival gangs/cartels/syndicates you have violence. Since you have violence you have a desire/need for firearms and then you have shootings. Bad guys shooting bad guys, bad guys shooting good guys, good guys trying to take down bad guys, innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire far too often. Now it's a highly visible problem and politicians need a scapegoat to satisfy the people.

Guns aren't the problem in that scenario. Guns are supply issue and the problem is a demand issue. There's a demand for violence because there's criminal drug trafficking because there's a demand for drugs. Gangs used to gun people down in the street in the 1930s during prohibition because bootlegging creating intense competition because criminals were making mountains of cash off of selling illegal booze. The end of prohibition took away the demand for tommy guns to gun people down over smuggled whiskey.

If you want to address the root causes of violent crime that would be great. It would help make the world a better place. Making it harder for law abiding citizens like me to buy firearms isn't going to have any discernible effect on the willingness of criminals to commit violent crimes with guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
No one here want's collateral damage either. Bystanders being wounded by people defending themselves is very, very rare (unless the NYPD is involved).

heh.

Reading your post I think you are confused about how self-defense in the US works. There is a legitimate difference between able to defend yourself against a threat (or multiple threats) and being "ready to blow someone away". Most gun owners will tell you that the best fight they ever had was the one that they avoided.Unfortunately not all can be avoided.

I think the only legitimate difference is one of persuasive language. It's like the difference between the ministry of defence and the ministry of war... It's exactly the same ministry. If you go into a shop and buy a gun for "home defense", the implication is that you are preparing and willing to shoot someone, who you have determined is a threat. You are making yourself ready to meet that threat with deadly force. That doesn't sound like the behaviour of someone who is earnestly planning to avoid and retreat.

Most states in the US no longer have laws that impose a duty to retreat. If somebody breaks into my house and poses a reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm I don't have to run away, I can stand my ground and defend myself, with lethal force if necessary. I'm the one in the right, it's my house, I'm being victimized by the criminal breaking in. If the criminal doesn't want to risk getting shot then the criminal and choose not to break into people's houses.

The language is very clear for self defense. A reasonable imminent thread of bodily harm or death. Reasonable will be defined by a your local prosecutor's office or ultimately a jury of your peers during trial. Self defense is an inalienable human right. Nobody has the right to harm others and everyone has the right to protect himself/herself from harm.

If a law abiding citizen wants to own a gun for self defense that's a personal choice they are free to make. If they can pass the federally required background check they haven't done anything that would disqualify them from exercising their right to own firearms and can choose to purchase what they want. Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, it doesn't need a qualification, you don't have to feel a need for self defense, or a desire to participate in shooting sports, or to go hunting or to shoot as a hobby or whatever. You don't need a justification to exercise free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or any other right either, that's the whole point of liberty, being able to exercise your free will.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, it doesn't need a qualification, you don't have to feel a need for self defense, or a desire to participate in shooting sports, or to go hunting or to shoot as a hobby or whatever. You don't need a justification to exercise free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or any other right either, that's the whole point of liberty, being able to exercise your free will.

Well lets not forget that Carey Gabay was exercising his right to free assembly when he got shot in head. Which no doubt inhibited him in what he was doing. While you can draw parallels between gun rights and other rights, each right comes with its own unique benefits and dangers, and limitations. Which aught to be considered on their own merits, not because you can draw parallels with other rights. I have the right to a fair trial, but I don't get to pick the date, and have no record of it happening. You've got to work within the system.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away.

"A lot more than are occurring currently" is probably the best answer you're going to get.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Most states in the US no longer have laws that impose a duty to retreat. If somebody breaks into my house and poses a reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm I don't have to run away, I can stand my ground and defend myself, with lethal force if necessary. I'm the one in the right, it's my house, I'm being victimized by the criminal breaking in. If the criminal doesn't want to risk getting shot then the criminal and choose not to break into people's houses.

While this is totally accurate, I do want to clarify that there are still a lot of states that require you to escape first in that situation - the "duty to retreat" he mentions - 20 states. So while "most" is true, "a little over half" might be more specific. It's not a safe assumption that the above is true in the state you live in. If you own a firearm in the US you need to be aware of that is required of you in your state beforehand.

Of course, you also should probably pick up a first aid kit, a few smoke alarms, and a fire extinguisher, because statistically those are all way, way more likely to be needed than your gun, but that's a whole other thread.

So far as the issue discussed, it's not one that gun control could have fixed or that gun availability could have fixed, either. If it truly was a select fire MAC-10, as was reported in a few places - probably erroneously - than already many, many laws had already been broken. Conversely, private gun ownership won't protect you from suddenly getting hit in the head from a stray bullet.

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Since gun ownership is a constitutional right, it doesn't need a qualification, you don't have to feel a need for self defense, or a desire to participate in shooting sports, or to go hunting or to shoot as a hobby or whatever. You don't need a justification to exercise free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion or any other right either, that's the whole point of liberty, being able to exercise your free will.

Well lets not forget that Carey Gabay was exercising his right to free assembly when he got shot in head. Which no doubt inhibited him in what he was doing. While you can draw parallels between gun rights and other rights, each right comes with its own unique benefits and dangers, and limitations. Which aught to be considered on their own merits, not because you can draw parallels with other rights. I have the right to a fair trial, but I don't get to pick the date, and have no record of it happening. You've got to work within the system.

A criminal, in possession of an illegal firearm, if reports of it being a select fire MAC10 are true, chose to commit a crime with it. No laws or inhibitions on rights could stop the criminal from firing the gun. Our criminal justice system can prosecute the criminal for the crime committed once he's caught but punishing law abiding citizens with more onerous restrictions on their constitutional rights would have no bearing on criminals choosing to commit crimes.

Comparisons to parallel rights is important because once you set a legal precedent for restricting any part of the Bill of Rights you can use the same argument to restrict other rights. Constituionally guaranteed rights all have the same legal standing so eroding one permits the eroding of others and if one is inalienable then all are inalienable.

If an aide of the governor got killed by a drunk driver should we then enact stricter control of the sale of alcohol or car ownership or the issuance of drivers licenses? You can't pre-emptively stop people from making bad and harmful choices you can only punish them after the fact and the only people that should be punished for the crime are the ones who commit them.

 Ouze wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I guess the question I'm trying to ask is how many deaths a nation wide firearm ban would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away.

"A lot more than are occurring currently" is probably the best answer you're going to get.

Collective punishment is morally and legally wrong. If somebody commits a crime then society should punish the perpetrator(s) not vast swathes of the population that had nothing to do with it. If somebody else does something wrong that doesn't give the government the right to infringe on the rights of people who had no involvement in the wrongdoing. If the government is going to try to restrict or remove constitutionally guaranteed rights from hundreds of millions of people they need a much stronger reason then the mere possibility that a tiny subset of those hundreds of millions of citizens might in the future abuse that right in the commission of a crime and harm others. How can you justify the government punishing people for something they didn't do, had no control over, had no responsibility for or involvement in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Most states in the US no longer have laws that impose a duty to retreat. If somebody breaks into my house and poses a reasonable threat of imminent bodily harm I don't have to run away, I can stand my ground and defend myself, with lethal force if necessary. I'm the one in the right, it's my house, I'm being victimized by the criminal breaking in. If the criminal doesn't want to risk getting shot then the criminal and choose not to break into people's houses.

While this is totally accurate, I do want to clarify that there are still a lot of states that require you to escape first in that situation - the "duty to retreat" he mentions - 20 states. So while "most" is true, "a little over half" might be more specific. It's not a safe assumption that the above is true in the state you live in. If you own a firearm in the US you need to be aware of that is required of you in your state beforehand.

Of course, you also should probably pick up a first aid kit, a few smoke alarms, and a fire extinguisher, because statistically those are all way, way more likely to be needed than your gun, but that's a whole other thread.

So far as the issue discussed, it's not one that gun control could have fixed or that gun availability could have fixed, either. If it truly was a select fire MAC-10, as was reported in a few places - probably erroneously - than already many, many laws had already been broken. Conversely, private gun ownership won't protect you from suddenly getting hit in the head from a stray bullet.

Correct. I wasn't trying to mislead but didn't have the time at the moment to get precise figures and went with "most" since it's accurate even though it's imprecise. I agree completely with your bolded statements. Too often the issue of gun control is brought up as a simple solution to a complex problem that really isn't caused by legal ownership of firearms.

 Smacks wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:


This isn't to say I'm against all gun control. Far from it. I think the sale of weapons needs to be more controlled. Like that crap about people can get firearms from events without any sort of background check. That needs to be cracked down on.

Just to hop in here on this point, here's nothing special about gun shows that allows this, the loophole isn't really what people think it is. Any private party transfer (e.g. Bob selling a gun to his neighbor Jim or Susie selling a gun she no longer wants to her co-worker Jill) can be done without a background check. Doesn't matter if they're making the sale/trade at home, a gunshow, at work, or anywhere else.

That wouldn't happen with a car though (or maybe it would in the US I dunno), but here if I sell a car there is paperwork involved. I'm supposed to inform the DVLA that I sold the car, and record the date, the price, make and model, the registration number, and the names and addresses of the buyer and seller. It's not as easy as just selling your old warhammer stuff.

Cars have a number of other factors associated with them even without getting into issues of "rights" and whatnot. They typically are big, expensive pieces of complex equipment that have very large environmental impacts and typically compose a substantial portion of an individual's assets (typically being the #1 most expensive asset aside from a house/condo) and as such have titles much like most land/buildings have a deed. Most are also intended to be used on government roadways. A firearm, as an object of property, typically has nowhere near the economic gravity or public use issues a vehicle does.

That said, not all motor vehicles have these things. Cars that are not intended to be used on public roads have much less paperwork attached to them, and something like a tractor will, in most places, literally have zero paperwork or sale requirements.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Collective punishment is morally and legally wrong. If somebody commits a crime then society should punish the perpetrator(s) not vast swathes of the population that had nothing to do with it. If somebody else does something wrong that doesn't give the government the right to infringe on the rights of people who had no involvement in the wrongdoing. If the government is going to try to restrict or remove constitutionally guaranteed rights from hundreds of millions of people they need a much stronger reason then the mere possibility that a tiny subset of those hundreds of millions of citizens might in the future abuse that right in the commission of a crime and harm others. How can you justify the government punishing people for something they didn't do, had no control over, had no responsibility for or involvement in?

Well, except that no right is totally absolute. There isn't really popular support to remove the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, or heavy weaponry like mortars or missile launchers (for example), just as there isn't really support for removing the restriction of your ability to yell fire in a crowded theater (for example). We clearly accept that not all of our rights are totally absolute.If we decide to restrict firearms more than they already are as a nation via our elected representatives - I think calling that "collective punishment" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's simply the latest nudge in what has been a moving line for the entire existence of the country - sometimes one way, sometimes the other.


And I hope I didn't imply that you were being misleading in that last post because I certainly didn't intend to, I just wanted to expand on it because I'm pretty sure this is something most people aren't generally aware of. Look at the outcry over "Stand your ground" with the claims it would turn the nation into a shooting gallery.I think even most Americans aren't clear that in a lot of places, if you own a gun and someone breaks into your house, if you shoot before trying to run away you can be prosecuted.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Collective punishment is morally and legally wrong. If somebody commits a crime then society should punish the perpetrator(s) not vast swathes of the population that had nothing to do with it. If somebody else does something wrong that doesn't give the government the right to infringe on the rights of people who had no involvement in the wrongdoing. If the government is going to try to restrict or remove constitutionally guaranteed rights from hundreds of millions of people they need a much stronger reason then the mere possibility that a tiny subset of those hundreds of millions of citizens might in the future abuse that right in the commission of a crime and harm others. How can you justify the government punishing people for something they didn't do, had no control over, had no responsibility for or involvement in?

Well, except that no right is totally absolute. There isn't really popular support to remove the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, or heavy weaponry like mortars or missile launchers (for example), just as there isn't really support for removing the restriction of your ability to yell fire in a crowded theater (for example). We clearly accept that not all of our rights are totally absolute.If we decide to restrict firearms more than they already are as a nation via our elected representatives - I think calling that "collective punishment" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's simply the latest nudge in what has been a moving line for the entire existence of the country - sometimes one way, sometimes the other.


And I hope I didn't imply that you were being misleading in that last post because I certainly didn't intend to, I just wanted to expand on it because I'm pretty sure this is something most people aren't generally aware of. Look at the outcry over "Stand your ground" with the claims it would turn the nation into a shooting gallery.I think even most Americans aren't clear that in a lot of places, if you own a gun and someone breaks into your house, if you shoot before trying to run away you can be prosecuted.

Some rights are absolute. I agree that the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute right but there's a difference between reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership and banning citizens from owning firearms. TheCustomLime asked "how many deaths a nation wide fierarm band would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away?" The banning of private firearm ownership altogether is what I was referring to as collective punishment. Stripping a right away entirely purely on the basis that a tiny minority of citizens will probably abuse it isn't justifiable. Telling a citizen that he/she can no longer legally own a gun because they committed a crime with a gun is justifiable, telling a citizen he/she cannot legally own a gun because he/she might misuse it at some point in the future is not. In the instance of a ban the govt is inflicting real harm, the removal of a constitutional right, purely on the basis of a hypothetical situation that statistically speaking won't occur in the vast majority of the instances of the right being exercised.

I didn't think you were accusing me of being misleading I just wanted to clarify that I'm just trying to speed post on my lunch break to break up the monotony of the workday and didn't take the time to find more specific information. I appreciate your help in posting the fact and I didn't want to come across as somebody who's being intentionally vague.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Collective punishment is morally and legally wrong. If somebody commits a crime then society should punish the perpetrator(s) not vast swathes of the population that had nothing to do with it. If somebody else does something wrong that doesn't give the government the right to infringe on the rights of people who had no involvement in the wrongdoing. If the government is going to try to restrict or remove constitutionally guaranteed rights from hundreds of millions of people they need a much stronger reason then the mere possibility that a tiny subset of those hundreds of millions of citizens might in the future abuse that right in the commission of a crime and harm others. How can you justify the government punishing people for something they didn't do, had no control over, had no responsibility for or involvement in?

Well, except that no right is totally absolute. There isn't really popular support to remove the restrictions on fully automatic weapons, or heavy weaponry like mortars or missile launchers (for example), just as there isn't really support for removing the restriction of your ability to yell fire in a crowded theater (for example). We clearly accept that not all of our rights are totally absolute.If we decide to restrict firearms more than they already are as a nation via our elected representatives - I think calling that "collective punishment" is a bit of a mischaracterization. It's simply the latest nudge in what has been a moving line for the entire existence of the country - sometimes one way, sometimes the other.


And I hope I didn't imply that you were being misleading in that last post because I certainly didn't intend to, I just wanted to expand on it because I'm pretty sure this is something most people aren't generally aware of. Look at the outcry over "Stand your ground" with the claims it would turn the nation into a shooting gallery.I think even most Americans aren't clear that in a lot of places, if you own a gun and someone breaks into your house, if you shoot before trying to run away you can be prosecuted.

Some rights are absolute. I agree that the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute right but there's a difference between reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership and banning citizens from owning firearms. TheCustomLime asked "how many deaths a nation wide fierarm band would prevent and would that decrease justify the rights of citizens being taken away?" The banning of private firearm ownership altogether is what I was referring to as collective punishment. Stripping a right away entirely purely on the basis that a tiny minority of citizens will probably abuse it isn't justifiable. Telling a citizen that he/she can no longer legally own a gun because they committed a crime with a gun is justifiable, telling a citizen he/she cannot legally own a gun because he/she might misuse it at some point in the future is not. In the instance of a ban the govt is inflicting real harm, the removal of a constitutional right, purely on the basis of a hypothetical situation that statistically speaking won't occur in the vast majority of the instances of the right being exercised.

I didn't think you were accusing me of being misleading I just wanted to clarify that I'm just trying to speed post on my lunch break to break up the monotony of the workday and didn't take the time to find more specific information. I appreciate your help in posting the fact and I didn't want to come across as somebody who's being intentionally vague.

But you've banned ownership of certain weapons already (the one in the article), based on the fact that the probability of misuse is too high compared to the amount of legitimate use such weapons would see. Specifically referring to the bolded part, what is the statistical threshold for banning access to a certain weapon, because of high the probability of illegitimate use?

I would claim that those bans are indeed pointless since the rate of crime committed with them is indeed so incredibly low.

If no weapons were illegal, criminals would still use the same weapons they use currently. Even if we could buy full-auto assault rifles as easily as we can buy shotguns and pistols the weapon of choice for crimes would still be pistols. Simply because they are concealable and significantly cheaper. Most guns used in commission of homicides get dumped immediately afterwards. Dumping a $50 pistol is way easier than dumping a $5000 AK. And nobody is going to use a $10,000+ full auto version. Really the only people with full auto weapons would be law abiding citizens who want a cool toy.

You make full auto weapons 100% legal, no additional licensing. You would not see a jump in gun related crime. You might see one crime with a full auto weapon committed every 5-10 years. Just spitballing here.