Gun Control

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That argument still fails on two fundamental points.

One, only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws. All you succeed in doing is making it more difficult for them to action their right to own firearms.

Criminals will still avail themselves of guns, so unless you pursue a policy to remove all firearms, you are unlikely to accomplish anything notable.

Two, mass shootings are unlikely to be affected by new restrictions on gun ownership. How can you predict the actions of a crazy person?

The best solution to prevent these incidents is more policing and mental health care resources being available to those who need them.

It's amazing, nobody applied this same broken logic to seatbelts. Seatbelts don't prevent all crashes! Not everyone will even wear a seatbelt! Accidents still happen! Why should the carmakers have to install seatbelts! Why should police have to enforce seatbelt laws! The REAL problem is reckless driving, if everyone just drove more carefully this wouldn't be a problem!

As for your second point its demonstrably false http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/background-checks-mass-shootings_5644aab1e4b045bf3dedebfd

meepins wrote:

A particular group within the US population has a higher propensity towards violence and homicide.

Which group? White males? Blacks? Muslims? Liberals? Conservatives? I've heard all of the above as claims for that same statement. All of it is pretty much garbage. They all do dumb ****.

eire4 wrote: »

Nobody that I know of has come out and talked about banning guns. If I am incorrect in that please do name what politicians have proposed banning guns.
This common refrain smacks of fear tactics not based in reality.

Exactly. It's an appeal to demagoguery.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Shooting happened in California, the state with one, if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

Which was adjacent to states with fewer restrictions. And check Nevada below. If the same restrictions were applied at the federal level, that no longer becomes the issue.

Besides, if we are to look at 1 mass shooting in CA and say "oh! see! doesn't work! You're ignoring the diminishing violence over time. This from the home of Los Angeles, the Bloods and the Crips. Their murder rate has yet to get to the level of New York (which is the 3rd lowest per capita gun death rate in the nation, with heavy restrictions on weapons) but its getting there. New York itself saw dramatic peaks in the 1990s and since then has cut their rate of violence by about 3/4. Many of the conservative rabble-rousers you'll find online will try to accuse libertards [sic] of being more violent and pointing to the totals in Chicago, New York etc. while ignoring the per capita stats

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-gun-deaths/

AbusesToilets

What additional background checks do you suggest that are not already available? I have no issue closing loop holes re: gun show purchases .etc, but acting as though the vast majority of purchases don't already involve such a check is dishonest.

The way to actually lower rates of crime and violent attacks is through better policing and more community resources, in particular mental health treatment. Those decreases in crime came about because of changes in policing, they weren't the result of restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase firearms.

Manach

So leaving aside the analogy of seat belts which breaks down as must people don’t deliberately misused their cars by crashing them, from the following (http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/12/03/guns-and-vultures/) a Gun instructor & author puts the onus on explaining how “common sense” controls would have worked. Given the core rights of gun ownership are part of the US constitution then the logical move would either be 1/ an amendment to change this 2/ else to accept that such rights are fundamental to this culture or 3/ hope that the SC will again be willing to re-interpret consitutional amendments as part of a living document.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What additional background checks do you suggest that are not already available? I have no issue closing loop holes re: gun show purchases .etc, but acting as though the vast majority of purchases don't already involve such a check is dishonest.

You're injecting a strawman there: I never said or acted to any claim that any high or low figure of purchases don't include background checks. What I said was that in states with tighter controls on guns, we see fewer deaths. But now that you've mentioned it, I'd like to add that is not correlative to gun ownership: in states with good controls for instance you can still have a lot of gun ownership yet still have lower rates of death: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/new-york-has-third-lowest-gun-death-rate-in-nation-6679088

"Perhaps unsurprisingly, the National Rifle Association is not supportive of studies like the VPC's. Catherine Mortensen, a spokesperson for the group, points out that gun ownership rates are not indicative of the homicide rate, which she says [emphasis mine] is the main focus of gun control legislation. "Almost all gun control laws are ostensibly intended to reduce homicide," Mortensen says via email. But she adds that gun ownership doesn't correlate well with homicide rates. "As examples, California (gun ownership at 21.3%) and Alaska (gun ownership at 57.8%) have the same murder rate...New York (ownership 18.0%) has the same murder rate as West Virginia (ownership 55.4%).""

The answer is to make sure of the guns you are handing out, that more are going to people that pass the best checks available and not just letting every tom dick or harry get one because freedom and 2nd amendment. That is the basic premise I would surmise of the well-regulated citizen militia of the USA. I don't need weapons going to "Conservatives" who think "liberals are vermin" and have them getting violently upset when measures to repeal Obamacare or end abortion fall through. No more than I want guns going to someone undergoing psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia; or with a background of violent crimes; someone on the terror watch list; registered sex offenders for rape, etc. - but in all of those cases, there is a State somewhere in the country where all of those people can buy a gun legally. That concerns me. If its someone you wouldn't want in the military for something other than much else beside physical standards, then its probably someone you don't want handling a firearm, either.

The way to actually lower rates of crime and violent attacks is through better policing and more community resources, in particular mental health treatment. Those decreases in crime came about because of changes in policing, they weren't the result of restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase firearms.

Do you have a source to validate that claim? A research paper? We know that if you put armed police in a school you're going to see a lot less risk of violence, that's QED in most cases (spare the tazers), but has any research been shown that suggests that there is not a correlation between increased gun control measures in lowering rates of violent crime? Why must we assume also that it must be one or the other? Can't bake a cake with just flour. I already can't purchase a fully automatic modern assault rifle or carry hand grenades - it doesn't severely inhibit my 2nd amendment rights, nor is the government thinking to itself "they have to pull the trigger between bullets, now is the time to unleash the Nazi agenda!" but you would think a miltiaman might want a grenade or two am I right?

Bottom line is the 2nd amendment does not inherently need to apply to every individual American. We can still maintain a well regulated militia with some people out of the loop, who don't need to be carrying weapons. One of our stronger enemies, the DPRK, has a military capability for 6-7 million soldiers and that still gives our military pause before action. Do you really think that - knowing well that the 2nd amendment is just as much about a check and balance to our govt as anything else - that the US military could hope to contain the 300 odd million weapons in circulation among 300 odd million americans? There are only about 2 million active and reserve personnel, even if an "Order 66" was somehow issued and followed, it doesn't math out well for any coup d'etait, even with semi-autos and limited clips to start the ground war with. On a good day though we already have about 70-80 million people that could be militarized in a crisis.

AbusesToilets

Two points.

You still haven't defined what these additional gun control measures you refer to are and how they would significantly contribute to lowering gun violence. As I said previously, the overwhelming majority of gun purchases are subject to a NCICS check prior to purchase. What other checks are you suggesting be put in place, and what would your ideas be to operate them?

Your point about the 2nd is factually incorrect, as per the Supreme Court's most recent interpretation. Additionally, as it is intended as a check against a predatory government, as fantasist as you might feel that concept to be, limiting its scope to those serving in an established militia would run contrary to that philosophy.

Inquitus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Two points.

You still haven't defined what these additional gun control measures you refer to are and how they would significantly contribute to lowering gun violence. As I said previously, the overwhelming majority of gun purchases are subject to a NCICS check prior to purchase. What other checks are you suggesting be put in place, and what would your ideas be to operate them?

Your point about the 2nd is factually incorrect, as per the Supreme Court's most recent interpretation. Additionally, as it is intended as a check against a predatory government, as fantasist as you might feel that concept to be, limiting its scope to those serving in an established militia would run contrary to that philosophy.

I am not an expert in US Gun Law, but are Gun shows not an easy medium for people who might not pass a background check to gain easier access to guns they might not be ordinarily allowed?

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Two points.

You still haven't defined what these additional gun control measures you refer to are and how they would significantly contribute to lowering gun violence.

QED, with states that have substantially lower gun death stats. If there was a federal limit on clip sizes for instance you wouldnt see full length magazines fitted with "VHS" style tabs that one could trivially modify to pack a full 30+ rounds; because the manufacturer caters a product to all States with varying levels of restriction.

Closing the gunshow loopholes, standardizing (and expediting) background check measures, include the terror watch list, include medical health flags (mental health), and thats in addition to other things that are probably on the books I'm not considering off the cuff. What I'm not in favor of (as I think I've said? maybe I didnt) is banning weapons for "being menacing." An AR-15 with a limited round magazine should cause no one any mass hysteria.

I'd prefer gun experts faithfully suggested limits to the type of weapon - we already don't allow newly manufactured automatics into the citizenry (hence limiting the rate of fire) and you can't just walk across the street and buy a howitzer or a case of hand grenades - so we've already 'come a long way' to common sense regulations on the potential for mass violence in this country.

and what would your ideas be to operate them?

It could be funded by a tax on the firearm purchase, a tax on the ammunition, etc.

AbusesToilets

I wouldn't have any issue closing loop holes relating to gun show purchases, although I think the level of purchases that occur in those circumstances is a small percentage of the total.

Have a mental health proscription is something that would need to be very carefully structured, as there a lot potential for using that as a discriminatory measure. As was mentioned in a past post, there are tens of thousands of combat veterans who have dealt with some level of post combat issues, for whom such a check could be used against them. That's in addition to regular civilians who deal with a broad spectrum of issues. Manic posed the question previously of potential liability for a health care practitioner who signs off on someone, who later commits a crime with a weapon. Would they be held accountable for that persons actions?

The National Firearms Act could certainly stand an update. There is no meaningful reason for making it difficult to purchases items like suppressors or short barrel rifles. Arguments about usage in crimes is a red herring, the number of crimes committed annually with legally purchased rifles is fractional.

There are no easy answers to solving this issue. More policing, better mental health facilities and better education and training for gun owners would go a long way to lowering the level of violence.

Overheal

I wouldn't have any issue closing loop holes relating to gun show purchases, although I think the level of purchases that occur in those circumstances is a small percentage of the total.

But so is the percentage of gun abuse.

Have a mental health proscription is something that would need to be very carefully structured, as there a lot potential for using that as a discriminatory measure.

Absolutely, I think its a hard thing to get a wrap on but I'd like the mental health/psychology community to butt heads on that one and suggest anything that might be useful, as a start we could only consider the worst of the red flags and not just every day depression or anger management issues.

Would they be held accountable for that persons actions?

That would probably gravitate up to the Supreme Court. In my view I'd say no, as even the unwell can wittingly mislead medical staff as to their current state. Happened with a relative of mine who had to be held under the Florida Baker Act 3 times in a month because each of those times she'd - well go crazy - then get into the facility and shortly thereafter her mindset would be to act perfectly rational knowing that they could not hold her if they could not prove set criteria. Even after some crazy altercations with the cops on rounds 2 and 3, she still couldn't be held against her apparent wishes.

I agree that the acts on record need to be looked at and frankly thats a good avenue to bipartisan discussion: eg. lifting bans on silencers (which could be legitimately used for hunting say) while looking at restrictions on this or that.

It will take a multi-faceted approach. As much as everyone likes an omnibus bill, I don't think its the right approach, but the problem with that is the partisanship: once one said gets measure A or B voted in that they wanted, they shut down, and the other half of the accord is never reached. That was basically the problem with Obamacare to a degree, things were fiddled in with it for the sake of passage and the things that helped make it work a bit better were never revisited, the whole thing was marketed as a categorical failure instead.

Amerika

Guns are not the main problem. Mental health issues, gangs and other criminal activities, and now homegrown terrorism, are the far bigger problems.

There are plenty of rules and restrictions on gun ownership across the US. About 20,000, actually.

There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths. About 34% of deaths as homicides. I don't know what the other 3% are. According to the FBI, almost four in ten homicides are classified as "unknown," like finding a body in a dumpster, riddled with bullets, in an inner city. There can be a good argument that these unknowns can be attributed to gangs (Unless one thinks their grandmas are out there popping off hipsters). Add up the know gang related gun homicides and the unknowns and you get 80% of gun homicides. Gangs and criminals wouldn’t give one hoot to ANY gun control measures.

According to an Oct 5, 2015 article in the Washington Post, there are already more civilian guns than people in the US. They estimate there are 317 million people and 357 million civilian firearms. Unless the government ignores the Constitution and performs a massive gun confiscation, any restrictive gun control measures would have almost no bearing on the availability of guns to criminals, the mentally ill and to terrorists. As a matter of fact, stricter gun control measures (like a registration process for all firearms) might actually be counter productive to those efforts. If people want to somehow sell off their firearms and not go through a massive bureaucracy that could already consider them criminals for not having registered firearms, the black market would grow.

And if people wanted to cause death and mayhem, lesser guns or stricter gun control would have no bearing IMO. As a matter of fact, each and every one of us here could probably build explosive devices, or even napalm, from items we already have in our households.

Overheal

So you're ostensibly suggesting those statistics are acceptable?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So you're ostensibly suggesting those statistics are acceptable?

No, I’d say deal with mental health issues, keep criminals and gang members off the streets, and deal with home-grown terrorism, and you will reduce the numbers far more then the stricter gun control measures being suggested.

And for everyone's viewing enjoyment...

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

No, I’d say deal with mental health issues, keep criminals and gang members off the streets, and deal with home-grown terrorism, and you will reduce the numbers far more then the stricter gun control measures being suggested.

And for everyone's viewing enjoyment...

I'd say get rid of the guns......maybe I'll write an equally awful song to that effect.

Amerika

Inquitus wrote: »

I'd say get rid of the guns......maybe I'll write an equally awful song to that effect.

Go for it. I'd like to hear it performed.

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

Go for it. I'd like to hear it performed.

I get your point about the horse having already bolted with regard to gun control, its very hard to reverse centuries of guns for all. But from a go forward standpoint if magazine size and restrictions of guns to meaningful requirements e.g rifle hunting, clay and livefowl shooting etc. were implemented what harm would it do?

Shooting deer requires only a couple of rounds for the kill or if you miss the deer has bolted, the same is true for game birds and the like. What would be wrong with banning assault rifles, gas automatic shotguns and the like and fitting the guns to the legitimate hunting and self defense uses?

AbusesToilets

Inquitus wrote: »

I get your point about the horse having already bolted with regard to gun control, its very hard to reverse centuries of guns for all. But from a go forward standpoint if magazine size and restrictions of guns to meaningful requirements e.g rifle hunting, clay and livefowl shooting etc. were implemented what harm would it do?

Shooting deer requires only a couple of rounds for the kill or if you miss the deer has bolted, the same is true for game birds and the like. What would be wrong with banning assault rifles, gas automatic shotguns and the like and fitting the guns to the legitimate hunting and self defense uses?

Your idea of what is a meaningful requirement is quite divergent for those on the pro-gun side. It would also go against the 2nd Amendment. The best tool for home defense is a carbine/ assault rifle.

Magazine capacity restrictions are a useless measure. It takes a couple of seconds to reload and someone with a mind to commit a shooting can easily alter any such mechanism, as the two shooters in California did.

Sport shooting, 3 gun competitions for example, is as valid a sport as any other. There are tens of thousands who would take issue with their interests being dismissed.

Ultimately, the fundamental issue remains, the overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by criminals, usually against other criminals, using illegally procured guns. New restrictions serve to penalise those who already follow the law.

Inquitus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

snip

Sometimes the law needs to be changed, we reduced the mg/l of blood alcohol as it became apparent previous levels were inadequate for preventing levels of drink drive deaths, just because a law was enshrined in the past doesn't mean it's relevant to the present.

FISMA.

Inquitus wrote: »

its very hard to reverse centuries of guns for all.

Inquitus,
You should read the history of English Common Law, pre-US, to gain some insight in to the subject. The Heller Decision would be a good place to start.

Under English Common Law, "Catholics" and "Highlanders" were named groups that were not allowed to: keep arms at home, bear arms on their person, and most definitely not allowed to form militias to overthrown corrupt governments.

These are the issues that the Second Amendment addresses, not hunting and sporting rights.

Later, gun control laws discriminated and targeted black people. Another good read would be the Sweet Trial and the role played by the NAACP in the decision.

Inquitus wrote: »

...rifle hunting, clay and livefowl shooting etc. were implemented what harm would it do?
Shooting deer requires only a couple of rounds for the kill or if you miss the deer has bolted, the same is true for game birds and the like.

Again, we do not have a second Amendment for the purposes of hunting.

Inquitus wrote: »

What would be wrong with banning assault rifles

Statistically, it would change nothing.

On average, 30,000 people die because of firearms every year in the US.

2/3 of that number commit suicide. That majority of which use a handgun.

1/3 of the 30,000 are homicides.

Of the 30,000 total, about 300 are killed by all rifles combined: hunting rifles and, as you stated, assault weapons.

Putting things in to perspective:

More people are killed in the US because of car accidents with deer/elk/moose than all rifles combined.

More people are killed by baseball bats than assault rifles.

More people are killed by hammers than assault rifles.

More people are killed by knives than assault rifles.

More people are killed by fists than assault rifles.

Why then do you concentrate on assault rifles, when they account for less than 1% of firearm deaths? Wouldn't common sense tell you to try and get rid of handguns? Question for you: how many US lives were saved last year because someone had a gun?

If liberals want common sense gun laws, they need to start by getting rid of gun laws that make no common sense.

Unfortunately, liberals do not operate on common sense, but emotions and perceptions. Their philosophy is ban anything if you want to ban everything.

Don't agree? Why restrict rifles with bayonets, which are usually on old WWII rifles, curio and relics? How many deaths, in the last decade, have been attributed to rifles with bayonets? Can you name any since the Civil War?

Not convinced? Here is a youTube clip of US House of Representatives, Carolyn McCarthy who in 2007 introduced a bill that would regulate assault weapons that had barrel shrouds. The only problem was, that when asked what a barrel shroud was, she did not know. Common sense, eh?

Again, ban anything, if you want to ban everything.

Until the fundamental issue, mental health, is addressed, violence, homicides, and suicides will continue at comparable rates.

Madd Finn

Manic Moran wrote: »

Rule #1 of leadership. Never give an order you know won't be followed. (OK, maybe it's not rule #1, but it's up there).

Reminds me of a classic encounter between Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus and a British Field Marshall during negotiations on the island's future back in the 1950s.

Skip to 19m 37s of this video from a series called End of Empire which chronicled Britain's retreat from its overseas possessions after the Second World War.

You would have probably seen eye to eye with the Archbishop, but you're clearly way short of the necessary stiffness in the upper lip to serve in Her Majesty's forces

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAjNwOayY5o

Madd Finn

FISMA. wrote: »

Under English Common Law, "Catholics" and "Highlanders" were named groups that were not allowed to: keep arms at home, bear arms on their person, and most definitely not allowed to form militias to overthrown corrupt governments.

These are the issues that the Second Amendment addresses, not hunting and sporting rights.

Later, gun control laws discriminated and targeted black people.
.......

we do not have a second Amendment for the purposes of hunting.


.....
On average, 30,000 people die because of firearms every year in the US.


1/3 of the 30,000 are homicides.

Of the 30,000 total, about 300 are killed by all rifles combined: hunting rifles and, as you stated, assault weapons.

I agree with the Gun Rights Advocates (GRAs) on one thing: faffing around with banning assault rifles and "background checks" but allowing people to carry semi-automatic pistols, for example, to the burger joint is a waste of time, a piety, a gesture as empty as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The most dangerous two words in the US Second Amendment are the couplet "and bear". The right to walk around with a loaded firearm with the implication that you can use it if you perceive your safety, not necessary your life, to be at risk is the key differentiator between the US and most other normal democracies. In the 21st Century.

The zealous faith that GRAs (I use this for brevity and it's so much more conciliatory than Gun Nuts) have in their ability to "defend freedom" with their personal firearm stashes against the "government turning tyrannical" contrasts dramatically with their utter lack of faith in democracy, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the accountability of police and the right to free speech. You know: all the safeguards democracy is supposed to provide and which the same people might claim are worth preserving.

It's a pathetic joke that any private citizen, or group of private citizens, could hope to defend themselves effectively with personal firearms against a state with a three quarter trillion dollar annual defence budget. Go to war against your own government with your "assault rifles" and you will lose.

Ask the Branch Davidians, who were armed to the teeth. How did it work out for them?

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

I agree with the Gun Rights Advocates (GRAs) on one thing: faffing around with banning assault rifles and "background checks" but allowing people to carry semi-automatic pistols, for example, to the burger joint is a waste of time, a piety, a gesture as empty as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The most dangerous two words in the US Second Amendment are the couplet "and bear". The right to walk around with a loaded firearm with the implication that you can use it if you perceive your safety, not necessary your life, to be at risk is the key differentiator between the US and most other normal democracies. In the 21st Century.

The zealous faith that GRAs (I use this for brevity and it's so much more conciliatory than Gun Nuts) have in their ability to "defend freedom" with their personal firearm stashes against the "government turning tyrannical" contrasts dramatically with their utter lack of faith in democracy, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the accountability of police and the right to free speech. You know: all the safeguards democracy is supposed to provide and which the same people might claim are worth preserving.

It's a pathetic joke that any private citizen, or group of private citizens, could hope to defend themselves effectively with personal firearms against a state with a three quarter trillion dollar annual defence budget. Go to war against your own government with your "assault rifles" and you will lose.

Ask the Branch Davidians, who were armed to the teeth. How did it work out for them?

You could ask the people of Afghanistan or Syria how that's worked out for the government.

FISMA.

"You never want a serious crisis go to waste... And what I mean by that is it is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emmanuel.

Even if the truth gets in the way.

As if following a script by Emmanuel himself, Obama acted quickly after San Bernardino, stating that "It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns".

I am not sure why he conflated San Bernardino with the no-fly list. Hopefully, he knew that the terrorists responsible for San Bernardino were not on the no-fly list.

In fact, even though the two responsible for the attack had previously and openly discussed martrydom on-line, they were not a government watch list.

Today, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy proposed using an executive order [Thursday] to ban gun sales to those who are on federal no-fly watch lists.

That sounds great, unless you are a fan of due process. This is especially true if your favourite Amendment to the US Constitution is the 5th, not the 2nd.

Just ask journalist Stephen Hayes who believes he is/was on the no-fly list. Unfortunately, you cannot "independently confirm Hayes’ account" as “the Terrorist Screening Center does not publicly confirm nor deny whether any individual may be included in the U.S. Government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) or a subset list.”

So how do you get off the list? Unknown.

How do you get on the list? Unknown.

Due process - .

This kind of system may not offend people in Ireland that stomached the British system of "justice" during the troubles. However, in the States, it is concerning to anyone that believes in the US Constitution and back-door legislation by officials that were not elected to make laws.

In the States, people elected at the Federal level to make laws are part of the Legislative. Others, like the President are elected to execute laws, not make them.

When a President or Governor decide they are going to make a law themselves, like an imperial power, anyone that believes in a republic or democracy should cry foul: left or right.

Swiftly

Interesting piece I read last week. 1,052 mass shootings in 1,066 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
The mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, is the deadliest in the US since a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

“We have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world,†Barack Obama said on Wednesday.

Data compiled by the crowd-sourced website ShootingTracker.com reveals a shocking human toll: there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident – nearly every day. (Updated on 3 Dec 2015)

Can't post links yet but easy to find if you Google headline

AbusesToilets

How many of those shootings involved criminals shooting other criminals? How many were committed by individuals using their personal, legally procured firearms?

Context matters.

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You could ask the people of Afghanistan or Syria how that's worked out for the government.

Yup. They've got all that democracy, independent judiciary, rule of law free speech stuff I mentioned too. And as for the "Due process" that FISMA mentions........
:rolleyes:

AbusesToilets

The point was on the ability of an armed citizenry to fight a government, which has been shown there and elsewhere to be quite effective. This is the core of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government.

IrishTrajan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your idea of what is a meaningful requirement is quite divergent for those on the pro-gun side. It would also go against the 2nd Amendment. The best tool for home defense is a carbine/ assault rifle.

Magazine capacity restrictions are a useless measure. It takes a couple of seconds to reload and someone with a mind to commit a shooting can easily alter any such mechanism, as the two shooters in California did.

If I recall correctly, the person who carried out the Port Arthur shootings in Australia was reloading and firing again in seconds with high accuracy.

IrishTrajan

Madd Finn wrote: »

I agree with the Gun Rights Advocates (GRAs) on one thing: faffing around with banning assault rifles and "background checks" but allowing people to carry semi-automatic pistols, for example, to the burger joint is a waste of time, a piety, a gesture as empty as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

On this we actually agree. People who open carry long-rifles just look like fedora-tipping morons.

Madd Finn wrote: »

It's a pathetic joke that any private citizen, or group of private citizens, could hope to defend themselves effectively with personal firearms against a state with a three quarter trillion dollar annual defence budget. Go to war against your own government with your "assault rifles" and you will lose.

Ask the Branch Davidians, who were armed to the teeth. How did it work out for them?

The point is not that one person will stop the State. That never happens. But several hundred people can effectively stop a State in its tracks. Look at the Iraq insurgency, and that is when the Americans were unified. If the Government was tyrannical, many members of the military would refuse to follow it.

And the expenditure of a State would not really be of the definitive factor in a civil war. The U.S. isn't going to use F-22s on their own cities, and a $5 bomb can ruin a $5 million tank.

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The point was on the ability of an armed citizenry to fight a government, which has been shown there and elsewhere to be quite effective. This is the core of the 2nd Amendment, that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government.

I'm aware of that. I'm also of the opinion that as a line of argument it is utterly daft.

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I'm also of the opinion that as a line of argument it is utterly daft.

Please, elaborate. Why do you feel it is ridiculous that citizens have a means to defend themselves?

FISMA.

For those still preaching the rhetoric of common sense gun laws. Consider the following on the San Bernardino terrorists.

2012: Farook's name appears in the social circles of a convicted California jihadi recruiter, Sohiel Kabir.

2013: Farook, now known to the FBI, and Malik, in online, public, social media, express support for ISIS and speak of jiahd and martyrdom.

2014: August - married

2015: San Bernardino.

What could stop terrorists such as these? After all, they did undergo interviews and extensive national security and criminal background checks. Such as:

(1) Homeland Security - American law enforcement and national security database check
(2) State Department - visa application/fingerprint check
(3) Green card, after marriage, another round of criminal & security checks
(4) Meeting in Pakistan with consular
(5) Immigration officer in US. At the time of green card application.

What could have prevented such an tragedy?

Simple, in fact, common sense. Something every private business and individual in the free world has done has done at some time: "google someone." That is, search their public social media.

Such a search does not require the NSA, search warrants, the Patriot Act, or violate civil liberties. What could be wrong?

Well...

The Obama Administration had a policy that prevented immigration officials from reviewing publicly available social media postings at that time.



Fearing a civil liberties backlash and "bad public relations" for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

This kind of nonsense does nothing to help anyone, left or right, on gun control. Rather, it makes everyone more vulnerable to attacks and drives deeper, the wedge of distrust between the two.

If anyone asks for common sense gun laws, let them first demonstrate they have common sense.

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Please, elaborate. Why do you feel it is ridiculous that citizens have a means to defend themselves?

I'd be glad to.

If, as you say "the core of the 2nd Amendment, [is] that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government." then why do you bother with democracy, the rule of law, checks and balances, free enquiry, transparency in government, due process, respect for essential human rights such as "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Why do you bother having any such apparatus at all? Why bother with any attempt at civilisation?

Your argument is, or unavoidably implies, that if you don't like what the government is doing you can pull out your gun and reject it.

That is not the argument of a civilised law-abiding country; that is the argument for a savage anarchical wasteland.


Who gets to decide if the government is being tyrannical? Cliven Bundy? He had his fair share of gun toting lunatics ready to "stand up against the government" in defence of his right to freeload where others had paid their dues.

But let's do away with the fantasy that "the government" is a tiny unrepresentative elite ruling only through force of arms and keeping subjects in thrall. In practice that never, or rarely, happens. A government usually has some power base in the population that it controls. Its supporters may be, in fact frequently are, a minority, and their ability to govern comes from repression and access to military might.

Topical case in point is Syria, where Assad comes from a minority sect, the Awalites, who through policies of divide and rule and alliance with other minorities manages to summon enough support to stay in power. Allowing guns for the general populace beefs up his supporters' physical strength as well has the opposition's.

And I reiterate, what chance has somebody with an AK 47 against a drone strike? If that's the measure of your resistance to your "tyrannical government" you haven't a hope.

The best form of self defence, indeed the only really secure form of self defence in a modern urbanised educated population is the rule of law and tightly controlled application of physical force by accountable security forces operating under a democratic, transparent code.

That's what most Western countries have evolved into.

America still lags behind. They'll wise up eventually.

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

I'd be glad to.

If, as you say "the core of the 2nd Amendment, [is] that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government." then why do you bother with democracy, the rule of law, checks and balances, free enquiry, transparency in government, due process, respect for essential human rights such as "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Why do you bother having any such apparatus at all? Why bother with any attempt at civilisation?

Your argument is, or unavoidably implies, that if you don't like what the government is doing you can pull out your gun and reject it.

That is not the argument of a civilised law-abiding country; that is the argument for a savage anarchical wasteland.


Who gets to decide if the government is being tyrannical? Cliven Bundy? He had his fair share of gun toting lunatics ready to "stand up against the government" in defence of his right to freeload where others had paid their dues.

But let's do away with the fantasy that "the government" is a tiny unrepresentative elite ruling only through force of arms and keeping subjects in thrall. In practice that never, or rarely, happens. A government usually has some power base in the population that it controls. Its supporters may be, in fact frequently are, a minority, and their ability to govern comes from repression and access to military might.

Topical case in point is Syria, where Assad comes from a minority sect, the Awalites, who through policies of divide and rule and alliance with other minorities manages to summon enough support to stay in power. Allowing guns for the general populace beefs up his supporters' physical strength as well has the opposition's.

And I reiterate, what chance has somebody with an AK 47 against a drone strike? If that's the measure of your resistance to your "tyrannical government" you haven't a hope.

The best form of self defence, indeed the only really secure form of self defence in a modern urbanised educated population is the rule of law and tightly controlled application of physical force by accountable security forces operating under a democratic, transparent code.

That's what most Western countries have evolved into.

America still lags behind. They'll wise up eventually.

I would argue that Europe as whole lags considerably behind the US when it comes to its attitude towards defense, both on a personal level and at the state level.

For decades, European nations have chosen to defund and minimise their expenditure when it comes to national defense, relying on the US to make up the difference. The socialist policies in place in Europe are in part paid for by the US taking up the slack in defense spending.

As to the more immediate topic in this thread, there is a lot that an armed citizenry can do against an oppressive government. Recent history is fairly awash with examples.

Any actual outbreak of conflict in the US would likely see large numbers of various Nation Guard units oppose the Federal Government. Units that have access to the same high end hardware that Federal military units have.

The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right of a citizen to possess firearms to protect themselves, whatever the circumstances. Being capable of protecting your family and property should be something that any responsible citizen aspires to.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would argue that Europe as whole lags considerably behind the US when it comes to its attitude towards defense, both on a personal level and at the state level.

I think its more like a massive cultural divide.

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would argue that Europe as whole lags considerably behind is light years ahead of the US when it comes to its attitude towards defense, both on a personal level and at the state level common sense, the rule of law and civilisation in general.

Now that makes more sense

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

Now that makes more sense

Sure, if you feel that forgoing any responsibility to have a capable means to protect their citizenry, be equally rife with corruption and have a fantastically unrepresentative organisation of Federal governance equals light years of advancement.

FISMA.

Madd Finn wrote: »

...and tightly controlled application of physical force by accountable security forces operating under a democratic, transparent code.

The RUC, for example?

eire4

FISMA. wrote: »

The RUC, for example?

No given they were running murder gangs through an RUC inner circle, leaking intelligence to terrorists etc I would say they are the perfect example of what a police force should not look like or behave like.

eire4

Madd Finn wrote: »

I'd be glad to.

If, as you say "the core of the 2nd Amendment, [is] that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government." then why do you bother with democracy, the rule of law, checks and balances, free enquiry, transparency in government, due process, respect for essential human rights such as "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Why do you bother having any such apparatus at all? Why bother with any attempt at civilisation?

Your argument is, or unavoidably implies, that if you don't like what the government is doing you can pull out your gun and reject it.

That is not the argument of a civilised law-abiding country; that is the argument for a savage anarchical wasteland.


Who gets to decide if the government is being tyrannical? Cliven Bundy? He had his fair share of gun toting lunatics ready to "stand up against the government" in defence of his right to freeload where others had paid their dues.

But let's do away with the fantasy that "the government" is a tiny unrepresentative elite ruling only through force of arms and keeping subjects in thrall. In practice that never, or rarely, happens. A government usually has some power base in the population that it controls. Its supporters may be, in fact frequently are, a minority, and their ability to govern comes from repression and access to military might.

Topical case in point is Syria, where Assad comes from a minority sect, the Awalites, who through policies of divide and rule and alliance with other minorities manages to summon enough support to stay in power. Allowing guns for the general populace beefs up his supporters' physical strength as well has the opposition's.

And I reiterate, what chance has somebody with an AK 47 against a drone strike? If that's the measure of your resistance to your "tyrannical government" you haven't a hope.

The best form of self defence, indeed the only really secure form of self defence in a modern urbanised educated population is the rule of law and tightly controlled application of physical force by accountable security forces operating under a democratic, transparent code.

That's what most Western countries have evolved into.

America still lags behind. They'll wise up eventually.

Very well put. Especially your point about who gets to decide what is a tyrannical government. I would also add into your well put thoughts on the best form of self defense that what also is needed is an inclusive open and fully representative government which sadly given the almost complete corruption of congress by big money is not the case. That is part of the problem as it has lead to all sorts of ridiculous situations such as the refusal to close the loop hold that allows potential terrorists on the no fly lists to buy guns. Or that the federal government is not allowed to keep statistcs on gun deaths and shootings and is not allowed spend money to research gun violence.

AbusesToilets

eire4 wrote: »

Very well put. Especially your point about who gets to decide what is a tyrannical government. I would also add into your well put thoughts on the best form of self defense that what also is needed is an inclusive open and fully representative government which sadly given the almost complete corruption of congress by big money is not the case. That is part of the problem as it has lead to all sorts of ridiculous situations such as the refusal to close the loop hold that allows potential terrorists on the no fly lists to buy guns. Or that the federal government is not allowed to keep statistcs on gun deaths and shootings and is not allowed spend money to research gun violence.

Thankfully Europe is such a bastion of governmental transparency

eire4

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thankfully Europe is such a bastion of governmental transparency

By saying Europe are you referencing the EU? If so no question the EU has a lot of transparency issues.


As for your statement I never said that either the EU or any particular European nation was. I was simply pointing out that having an open inclusive fully representative government is part of what we need.

IrishTrajan

Madd Finn wrote: »

I'd be glad to.

If, as you say "the core of the 2nd Amendment, [is] that the citizenry be able to fight back against an oppressive government." then why do you bother with democracy, the rule of law, checks and balances, free enquiry, transparency in government, due process, respect for essential human rights such as "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

Why do you bother having any such apparatus at all? Why bother with any attempt at civilisation?

Your argument is, or unavoidably implies, that if you don't like what the government is doing you can pull out your gun and reject it.

You completely misconstrued the meaning of the word tyranny.

noun, plural tyrannies.
1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.
6.
a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.

Madd Finn wrote: »

And I reiterate, what chance has somebody with an AK 47 against a drone strike? If that's the measure of your resistance to your "tyrannical government" you haven't a hope.

Once again, it isn't a 1 to 1 scenario. A drone can't guard a logistics depot, an airplane can't stand sentry in an army base. Asymmetric warfare developed for a reason: one side utilizes it to cut out the difference in capabilities.

Madd Finn wrote: »

The best form of self defence, indeed the only really secure form of self defence in a modern urbanised educated population is the rule of law and tightly controlled application of physical force by accountable security forces operating under a democratic, transparent code.

That's what most Western countries have evolved into.

America still lags behind. They'll wise up eventually.

I would agree with you, but if you believe education and transparency is the answer to security - why would you oppose relaxation of gun laws? Background checks, proficiency exams, allowing the security forces to check your weapon if they believe a similar-type weapon was used in a crime (to test the ballistics)... All of these, I presume most gun owners would agree with.

Why then would you argue against educating people in regards to guns? If education is the key to people following the law, surely it makes sense to have them acquainted with firearms, rather than firearms being some taboo subject associated solely with fanatic owners?

Madd Finn

eire4 wrote: »

No given they were running murder gangs through an RUC inner circle, leaking intelligence to terrorists etc I would say they are the perfect example of what a police force should not look like or behave like.

And consider the ancestors of the RUC, the Royal Irish Constabulary who policed all of Ireland in the days of British rule.

One of the first actions of the Free State government on gaining independence was to disarm the police! The Garda Siochana, which replaced the RIC was and is, by default, an unarmed body. It has access to arms and specialised armed units but no more than the minimum.

This was simultaneously a severe rebuke to our former colonial masters ("We don't need armed cops to keep our people in line") and a sincere compliment. "Your model of policing in your own country is as civilised and representative as can be. We didn't inherit such a model from you, because you didn't think us worthy of it, but we'd like to imitate it."

Now that's flattery of the sincerest form.

And consider how much of popular culture today including music, cinema, food, dress, business practices etc is influenced by American society. Again, imitation as the sincerest form of flattery.

Now ask yourself this: how many normal democracies have gun laws remotely like America's? Very few, if any.

Never mind what we say; look at what we do. We flatter America to the hilt in so many ways, but when it comes to gun control our refusal to imitate American society is a silent rebuke of the most emphatic kind.

In fact, if it were verbalised a point of similar emphasis made on this forum would probably result in a site ban!

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Sure, if you feel that..... a fantastically unrepresentative organisation of Federal governance equals light years of advancement.

Probably going off topic slightly but do you seriously think that a sub continent of 300 million people having an effective choice of two political parties (Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumbass) to represent all their various needs is "representative"?

Gimme a break.

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

Probably going off topic slightly but do you seriously think that a sub continent of 300 million people having an effective choice of two political parties (Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dumbass) to represent all their various needs is "representative"?

Gimme a break.

Voters are free to elect whom they choose, as you well know there is no mandate that a representative come from the Republicans or Democrats. The label makes little difference anyway, private money is equally present on either side.

As to your continued assertion of Europe's superior electoral model; the US allows for equal Senatorial representation for 50 states versus a Union that can't manage similar for 25 states, in a Union a fraction of the size geographically?

Which one has weighted voting in its parliament?

Madd Finn

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You completely misconstrued the meaning of the word tyranny.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this semantic argument. Is it that the US could never be tyrannical because its Constitution and the separation of powers it mandates mean that no American ruler could indulge in "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority."

Or is it that "tyranny" is not the threshold point at which taking up arms against the government becomes justified? Unpleasant actions by the government which fall a long way short of the definitions of tyranny you have given may nonetheless justify armed resistance?

I think you're strengthening my argument here

IrishTrajan wrote: »

if you believe education and transparency is the answer to security - why would you oppose relaxation of gun laws? Background checks, proficiency exams, allowing the security forces to check your weapon if they believe a similar-type weapon was used in a crime (to test the ballistics)... All of these, I presume most gun owners would agree with.

Why then would you argue against educating people in regards to guns? If education is the key to people following the law, surely it makes sense to have them acquainted with firearms, rather than firearms being some taboo subject associated solely with fanatic owners?

Education and transparency are not the only prerequisites for a civilised democracy, although they are necessary. And where did I ever say that people could not be educated about guns?

I don't favour an outright ban on ALL guns. I don't know of any country, even the famously gun shy UK which has such a ban. It is possible to own a gun or guns in any country in the EU.

You're just not allowed, in almost all circumstances, to shoot anyone with them.

As I have said before, and Manic Moran seems to have scoured the legislatures of Europe to try and find an exception to prove me wrong, the BASIC difference between American gun culture and that of nearly all other democracies is the extent to which one can bear arms.

In the US, the default position (which some local jurisdictions try to restrict in the teeth of manic opposition from the NRA et al) is that the ordinary citizen can walk around carrying a loaded firearm. No wonder that so many people get shot unjustifiably.

In just about any democracy you can go hunting with a rifle or shotgun, you can shoot at a range, you can control vermin (of the four legged kind) on your farm. You CAN'T threaten some kid you think MIGHT be considering burglary just because you don't like the look of him and then shoot him if he fights back.

I reckon it's those casual shootings, as well as the thousands of suicides (how miserable does owning a gun make you?) that pushes up the American homicide rate; not the relatively small number of "mass shooting" spectaculars.

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

In the US, the default position (which some local jurisdictions try to restrict in the teeth of manic opposition from the NRA et al) is that the ordinary citizen can walk around carrying a loaded firearm. No wonder that so many people get shot unjustifiably.

In just about any democracy you can go hunting with a rifle or shotgun, you can shoot at a range, you can control vermin (of the four legged kind) on your farm. You CAN'T threaten some kid you think MIGHT be considering burglary just because you don't like the look of him and then shoot him if he fights back.

I reckon it's those casual shootings, as well as the thousands of suicides (how miserable does owning a gun make you?) that pushes up the American homicide rate; not the relatively small number of "mass shooting" spectaculars.

The majority of deaths attributed to guns annually in the US are caused by criminals using illegally procured weapons committing a crime (usually against other criminals) and suicides.

What are these casual shootings you allude to? Bloke strolling down the street with his concealed carry pistol, randomly shooting a punter? Load of tosh.

Gun suicides are high because they tend to be a successful, versus taking pills or hanging etc. Correlating possession of a gun and depression is wildly fallacious, and pretty pathetic line of argument.

Madd Finn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The majority of deaths attributed to guns annually in the US just about any country are caused by criminals using illegally procured weapons committing a crime (usually against other criminals)

Happy to concede this. But two things to consider here.

Leaving out suicide, let's say that 90% of gun homicides in both US and Ireland are "criminals killing criminals". OK, what about the other 10%? Given America's gun homicide rates are so ridiculously out of whack with
those of other normal democracies the 10% of "non-criminal" deaths is going to be a much larger figure, even when adjusted for overall population, than for other countries. How can you justify such a high incidence of unnecessary deaths of "non criminals" just to give yourself the comfort blanket of thinking you're safer because you're carrying a piece?

And the second thing is, what constitutes a criminal and what level of crime to you have to attain before it's justifiable to say "Oh well. He deserved to get shot"?

Two tooled-up thugs from rival crime syndicates blowing each other away in a gun battle over a turf dispute is one thing, but what about a disagreement over payment among teenagers buying a small amount of say hashish? Like enough for a good night out and no more? Here, such a dispute might lead to a kicking. If one of the parties is carrying a gun it could lead to something a lot worse.

Do such petty misdemeanours negate the right to life of their perpetrators?

AbusesToilets wrote:

What are these casual shootings you allude to?

See above.

AbusesToilets

Madd Finn wrote: »

Happy to concede this. But two things to consider here.

Leaving out suicide, let's say that 90% of gun homicides in both US and Ireland are "criminals killing criminals". OK, what about the other 10%? Given America's gun homicide rates are so ridiculously out of whack with
those of other normal democracies the 10% of "non-criminal" deaths is going to be a much larger figure, even when adjusted for overall population, than for other countries. How can you justify such a high incidence of unnecessary deaths of "non criminals" just to give yourself the comfort blanket of thinking you're safer because you're carrying a piece?

And the second thing is, what constitutes a criminal and what level of crime to you have to attain before it's justifiable to say "Oh well. He deserved to get shot"?

Two tooled-up thugs from rival crime syndicates blowing each other away in a gun battle over a turf dispute is one thing, but what about a disagreement over payment among teenagers buying a small amount of say hashish? Like enough for a good night out and no more? Here, such a dispute might lead to a kicking. If one of the parties is carrying a gun it could lead to something a lot worse.

Do such petty misdemeanours negate the right to life of their perpetrators?





See above.

You realise that murder rates are at any all time low, with gun crimes in particular in the US at their lowest point since the early part of the 2000s? Gun crime levels are improving year on year, I would wager largely due to increased policing.

I don't have the concern for the lives of those who would seek to commit acts of crime and violence. Actions have consequences, if a burglar gets shot trying to rob someone, I won't shed any tears.

Illegal use of a firearm, by any party, should be punished appropriately.

Manic Moran

Madd Finn wrote: »

Two tooled-up thugs from rival crime syndicates blowing each other away in a gun battle over a turf dispute is one thing, but what about a disagreement over payment among teenagers buying a small amount of say hashish? Like enough for a good night out and no more? Here, such a dispute might lead to a kicking. If one of the parties is carrying a gun it could lead to something a lot worse.

Does it not say something about society being substantially more broken than anything to do with gun laws that an argument over two teenagers squabbling over payment for a small amount of hashish should escalate into lethal violence? Like "What makes teenagers think it's acceptable to kill over such matters"?

Arguments such as the above also fail to observe the positive which can come out of such things. Not sure why, as the upload is a couple months old, but this came over my FB feed this weekend. Definitely put a stop to that armed robbery, and likely any probability that the chap will try again.

https://www.facebook.com/likeiowagunowners/videos/1076442859046590/