Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gun Rights - right to bear arms

Gun Rights - right to bear arms (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Just Google it, man. As many as half of the world's child soldiers are in Africa alone. It's a serious problem in developing nations as warlords and tyrants conscript children into their military.
No, cite your claim that the same user "can't hit" a target with semi-auto, but requires "no training" for full-auto.


If I had to put a number on it, I'd say 350 rounds per minute would be the cutoff. Assault rifles enter in around 450 rounds per minute.
Which spree shooters fired 350 rounds per minute? How many gun crimes in general fire 350 rounds per minute? How many gun crimes even fire more than 6 shots all together?


Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Example being that theater shooting where the guy let off hundreds of rounds but only managed to kill 2 people.
You're ignoring that the theater is fairly large, he obstructed his own vision using the gas canisters, and there are rows and rows of chairs to hide behind so he can't see you.
But it was a full automatic gun, a evil military style gun. You already said above it should have killed hundreds of people.
And by your logic, he shouldn't have killed more than 2 or 3 people because automatic weapons are impossibly inaccurate.
He didn't
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Semi-autos are full-autos with a limiter built in. It's almost a trivial exercise to get rid of the limiter.
How often is it done? In crime? To what extent do you think the ban affects crime, despite this work-around?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:05 PM
 
FWIW, the lower the RPM, the more controllable the gun.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How often is it done? In crime? To what extent do you think the ban affects crime, despite this work-around?
It's almost never done. My point is the full-auto ban has less impact on the "military" readiness of the citizenry than it may appear.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you buy into the "protection from tyranny" argument, letting the government compile a list of who has guns isn't that swell an idea.
That's why people oppose it, but it doesn't answer the question of whether the 2nd amendment would allow it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:14 PM
 
As I've also said before, the value of full-auto is for suppression fire, and shooting up a room of unarmed civilians. For anything else, you're just wasting ammo.

It's just not that valuable of a feature except in very specific circumstances.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's why people oppose it, but it doesn't answer the question of whether the 2nd amendment would allow it.
My guess is the system would need truck-sized holes to pass the test of being non-infringing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2013, 11:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My guess is the system would need truck-sized holes to pass the test of being non-infringing.
Really? It would infringe more than concealed-carry permits, a ban on full-auto, ban on explosives, ban on WMDs? How?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:05 AM
 
Well, if I can get realpolitik for a second, it would be more infringing than WMDs because more people would care, and invest their time poking legeslative holes in it.

With the smaller scale examples, I think there's an argument to be made that a registry doesn't infringe. The issues all come up in the implementation. The more effort a citizen needs to put in to comply, the more (it will be argued) it infringes. The less effort needed by citizens, the easier it will be to escape the need to be compliant.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:10 AM
 
Frex. In Illinois, I need to pay the State Police and send them photos to get a license to own a gun. They don't call it a license, but for all intents and purposes, that's what it is.

That's definitely infringing. If I have to pay the government money to do it, that's not a right.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:16 AM
 
And, just for the people who missed it when I posted it earlier, I got one of these licenses so I could rent a gun. One which would never leave the range it's rented at.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:19 AM
 
And and, our Attorney General threatened to print the entire list of license holders.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you buy into the "protection from tyranny" argument, letting the government compile a list of who has guns isn't that swell an idea.
I dont know if the list shows 200 million people armed with 500 million guns, it might work towards the peoples favor at putting fear into the government.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, if I can get realpolitik for a second, it would be more infringing than WMDs because more people would care, and invest their time poking legeslative holes in it.

With the smaller scale examples, I think there's an argument to be made that a registry doesn't infringe. The issues all come up in the implementation. The more effort a citizen needs to put in to comply, the more (it will be argued) it infringes. The less effort needed by citizens, the easier it will be to escape the need to be compliant.
Just for the record I suggested a gun license only nothing about tracking gun purchases. Valid license means legal to buy and own gun. This makes it easy for cops, this makes it easy for sellers. Background checks are based on getting the license not at point of sale. Only thing done at point of sale is making sure the license is valid. And the question was would this play ok with the 2nd amendment as it stands.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 01:04 AM
 
Funny thing is the more I learn about US laws about guns from state to state the more I realise how bloody simple it is here in Canada and more important easier in some ways.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, cite your claim that the same user "can't hit" a target with semi-auto, but requires "no training" for full-auto.
I concede I have nothing to cite. It's purely anecdotal.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Which spree shooters fired 350 rounds per minute?
One of the most famous is the North Hollywood bank robbery.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How many gun crimes in general fire 350 rounds per minute? How many gun crimes even fire more than 6 shots all together?
Statistically, mass shootings are rare, but I'd rather reduce the risk of them happening at all.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
He didn't
Yes he did:

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
And in full automatic mode only a couple children would have been hit...
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
FWIW, the lower the RPM, the more controllable the gun.
Yes, that's very true. However, I'm more worried about close quarters such as in classrooms.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Statistically, mass shootings are rare, but I'd rather reduce the risk of them happening at all.
So that would totally depend upon the Mass Shooter being a law abiding citizen and not using a illegal gun with illegal magazines to carry out his illegal mass shooting right?

Making something illegal does not affect or change anything for those who don't follow the law. And last time I checked murder was not law abiding.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I concede I have nothing to cite. It's purely anecdotal.
I don't believe it's true.


One of the most famous is the North Hollywood bank robbery.
Where they managed to kill a grand total of: zero (not counting one suicide).


Statistically, mass shootings are rare, but I'd rather reduce the risk of them happening at all.
By implementing policies that have the opposite effect?


Originally Posted by olePigeon
Yes he did:
Originally Posted by Athens
And in full automatic mode only a couple children would have been hit...
Out of 2 full-auto mass shootings cited in this thread, 100% have been consistent with Athens' prediction of 2 or fewer fatalities. On what basis do you dispute it?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 03:14 PM
 
This is about as accurate as it gets except the gun Wil Wheaton had should have ran out of ammo with in seconds but hey its hollywood.

Wil Wheaton Death Scene Toy Soldiers - YouTube
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 31, 2013, 07:19 PM
 
You can't blame someone for wanting to shoot Wesley Crusher.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2013, 12:39 PM
 
Well he did take a bayonet in the chest in season 1 of Star Trek as well
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2013, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Automatic weapons are already banned, and have been for decades.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 requires a $200 transfer tax be paid for the legal transfer of automatic weapons, which must first be listed in the NFA rolls (which were frozen by Congress in 1986). If you pass a very extensive and lengthy background check, if you get the chief law enforcement officer for your jurisdiction to sign off on your application to pay the tax, and if you have several thousand dollars handy to buy one, you CAN own an automatic weapon. It is a hobby for very well off people; an M16 can cost over $25,000, and a submachinegun like an MP5 can cost almost that much. Of course if you've gone through all the crap and hassle to legally buy an automatic weapon, just how likely are you to use it to commit a crime? So far, there is absolutely no evidence of an automatic weapon being used by its legal owner in any crime,

It is important to note that NONE of the high profile cases being discussed here involved automatic weapons. None of them. Not in Arizona, not Colorado, not Connecticut. High rates of fire mean lots of wasted ammunition, not necessarily more casualties. In the full examination of these shootings (including a "soldier" shooting up a bunch of people on Ft. Hood), the shooter is typically very inaccurate, fires somewhere around 20 shots before hitting anyone, and hurts people because they are surprised and defenseless, not because of the "massive firepower" they brought to bear.

In Connecticut, it would not have mattered if the shooter had a .22 caliber handgun. He trapped his victims and made a scene in hopes of "going down in infamy." Big magazines an issue? Not there. And not in Colorado; that sicko managed to get his rifle to jam during his rampage. (That's hard to do with an AR-15.). That 100 round magazine of his was almost certainly the reason, too, because they are notorious for that.

There is too much reliance on Hollywood's presentation of firearms and their use in society, particularly in the group that thinks guns are evil. People have murdered others with knives, rocks, power nailers, cars, scissors, ice picks...the thingsare not themselves evil, but what the users do with them may be. Guns are too powerful? What about cars?

Before anyone starts adding to the more than 20,000 laws concerning firearms ownership in the U.S., maybe we should start busting our butts to enforce the ones that are already there. I should be very hard for anyone to get a gun without going through a licensed dealer. Tell that to kids in South L.A. Tell that to anyone who buys his guns from "that guy in the Wal-Mart parking lot after midnight." It should be hard for someone whose shrink has decided he's a danger to himself and society to get a gun. Tell the Commonwealth of Virginia, which bans mental health workers from informing police (and thus the National Instant Background Check system), which did not have any information about the Virginia Tech shooter when he bought his guns over the counter.

Enough outrage. Let's do something. Something smart, like enforcing the current rules, because maybe they might work if we tried them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 12:29 PM
 
Gun control isn't about guns, it's just about control. And there's never been any sense to it. Until the major media starts paying attention to the benefits of private gun ownership and stops accentuating the costs, we won't have any rational discussion on this point.

Compare the gun issue to the abortion issue - it's all about framing the conversation. "Pro-choice" is the term used for those who want to kill unborn babies. I don't care what you're position is, the use of that term is misleading. It isn't pro-choice, it's pro killing your unborn child. And no amount of language manipulation is going to change the anguish that a woman goes through when trying to make that decision, or the pain she'll feel the rest of her life. It trivializes the decision to turn it into a political movement or terminology issue.

In the gun issue, it's "gun control" versus "gun violence", when it should be framed as "pro self-defense" since that's how legal guns are actually used. The right to defend oneself is actually stronger in this country than the right to abort one's child - one is in the Constitution and the other had to be revisionista'd into the Constitution almost 200 years later. But the terminology used by The Left includes things that they don't understand, such as "assault rifle" and "cop killer bullets" and "gun nuts". None of those things apply. Do you ever hear someone from the crunchy granola Planned Parenthood crowd referred to as an "abortion nut"? "Gun violence" doesn't come from "gun nuts," but we're the ones constantly being regulated because of it.

The mayor of Newark had an interesting perspective on the issue:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker Slams ‘False Debate’ Over Gun Control as ‘Convenient Trick to Divide America’ | Conscious Life News

Then on Meet the Press:
January 13: Colin Powell, Cory Booker, Haley Barbour, Mike Murphy, Andrea Mitchell - Meet the Press - Transcripts | NBC News

Sounds like somebody is willing to stand up to the hypocrisy on this one. Good for him.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2013, 01:42 PM
 
I just want to point out that
It should be hard for someone whose shrink has decided he's a danger to himself and society to get a gun.
Will never happen because if someone is seeing a shrink and does something but the shrink hasn't reported the person as "a danger" then the shrink will be liable. So you can never expect a psychiatrist to sign off one way or another. Also they already can report someone if they think someone is a danger to others.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 06:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I just want to point out that

Will never happen because if someone is seeing a shrink and does something but the shrink hasn't reported the person as "a danger" then the shrink will be liable. So you can never expect a psychiatrist to sign off one way or another. Also they already can report someone if they think someone is a danger to others.
Apparently shrinks are already liable in New York if they do NOT report this sort of thing. The problem there is that only a handful of mental health professionals have actual training in determining whether or not someone is likely to become violent, while most psychologists and psychiatrists are from 50%-70% accurate (a study of professionals in locked ward situations found the new docs were only 50% accurate in identifying patients who would become violent in the ward, while experienced docs were up to 70% accurate).

An indication to law enforcement that a patient might be inappropriate for gun ownership, without details, could be very easy to implement, and would cover both "danger to society" and suicidal issues. There needs to be a mechanism for the patient to contest this, because it will wind up being used way too often, but if we're concerned about the wrong people getting guns, then false positives (with a mechanism to correct them) are acceptable.

I'm still convinced that if the system that is in place now was fully implemented (all states reporting criminal information all the time), and that if law enforcement actually went after people who attempted to buy guns when they were clearly prohibited (felons, for example), that there would be a lot less reason to think about new laws.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post

Enough outrage. Let's do something. Something smart, like enforcing the current rules, because maybe they might work if we tried them.

How about something smarter such as tossing out all the old rules, creating enforceable and accountable rules that if proper will be effectively followed by most people and enforce those ones. Some things can't be fixed by laying more and more on it. Its best to toss it all out and start fresh.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
How about something smarter such as tossing out all the old rules, creating enforceable and accountable rules that if proper will be effectively followed by most people and enforce those ones. Some things can't be fixed by laying more and more on it. Its best to toss it all out and start fresh.
We have enforceable and accountable rules that are effectively followed by most people. The problem is that they are not enforced enough.

We don't need to scrap the old rules and we don't need any new ones - we need to start enforcing the ones we have more.
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
15" Late-2013 2.3GHz i7 Retina Macbook Pro
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 04:02 PM
 
Good read.

Study: The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009

The report concludes that there have been 43 mass shootings in 25 states over the past four years — or nearly one per month.
For all the attention they receive, mass shootings are not the main source of gun violence. In 2010, according to the FBI, around 8,775 people were murdered with firearms in the United States. Less than 1 percent of those victims were killed in mass shootings.
Just 12 of the mass-shooting incidents, or 28 percent, involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines — the very same guns that some members of Congress are now trying to ban. At the same time, mass shootings were a lot deadlier when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were used, with an average of 8.3 deaths, compared with 5.4 deaths on average for the rest.
From the report: “In at least 17 of the cases (40%), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner, and at least 6 of those shooters had a prior domestic violence charge.”
Under federal law, felons, certain domestic abusers and people deemed mentally ill are barred from owning guns. The report found that at least 11 of the shooters fell into this category — although there was no good data one way or the other for about one-third of the cases.
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
15" Late-2013 2.3GHz i7 Retina Macbook Pro
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2013, 05:09 PM
 
Under federal law, felons, certain domestic abusers and people deemed mentally ill are barred from owning guns. The report found that at least 11 of the shooters fell into this category — although there was no good data one way or the other for about one-third of the cases.
So current laws cover 50% of the mass shootings. Though I'd debate any statistical set covering a mass event with an average of 5.4. That seems way to low or the standard of deviation is almost 0.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2013, 05:16 PM
 
Besides murder and violent crimes are dwarfed by nutrition related deaths. I mean out food is far more deadly to us then any of these weapons
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 07:01 PM
 
Miami 'super dad' dies protecting daughter, 11, during home invasion | Fox News

Do you think stricter gun laws would have kept guns out of these criminals' hands?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 07:06 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 08:01 PM
 
HB 2291 would protect Arizona gun owners from new federal laws restricting guns.

The bill would make it a felony for federal government employees to enforce new federal laws or regulations on guns, accessories and ammunition owned of manufactured in our state.

The bill would also make Arizona exempt from any new federal restrictions on semi-automatic firearms and magazines and new registration rules.

Read more: Arizona lawmakers take aim at President's gun control policies
Tennessee is doing the same, as is Vermont. So, you guys in other states can do what you want.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
By implementing policies that have the opposite effect?
Australia and the UK have demonstrated the effectiveness of gun bans. I would agree with you to the extent that the bills being promoted don't go far enough, to the point of uselessness. There's very little reason to ban any type of weapon if the sale, trade, and distribution is still allowed for existing weapons; or, if ridiculously stupid loopholes such as gun shows are allowed. If any weapon is banned, it has to be removed from public use.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Out of 2 full-auto mass shootings cited in this thread, 100% have been consistent with Athens' prediction of 2 or fewer fatalities. On what basis do you dispute it?
Statistics. Mrjinglesusa already posted it. 8.3 deaths on average per incident versus 5.4 deaths, and that is with a disproportionately low amount of high RPM/high capacity to other gun types.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Australia and the UK have demonstrated the effectiveness of gun bans.
Really? I don't believe this.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Really? I don't believe this.
It depends on what metric you want to measure it by.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Really? I don't believe this.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It depends on what metric you want to measure it by.
Actually they have, but not in the way they expected. Criminals, deprived of any access to firearms (they did this thing in both the UK and Australia that is semantically equivalent to "confiscation"), the criminals found other weapons. Knives, axes, clubs, swords, and so on. The result was that the UK has almost no firearm-related crime, but violent crime appears to have been little impacted, at least on a several year time scale. The UK has instituted controls on kitchen knives because of the increasing use of them in criminal activities.

I will further point out that neither the UK nor Australia is a useful model for the U.S. for anything related to firearms legislation. Despite the verbiage used, when it comes to government mandates, the population is still effectively "subjects" rather than "citizens" in the way U.S. citizens are; both governments can establish mandatory requirements that can be put in place despite the public's desires (thought in both countries the government used some particularly dodgy sales techniques to ramrod through their bans, reducing the public outcry until it was too late).

I am firmly convinced that, whether or not new, additional firearms controls are needed in the U.S., the existing laws need to be fully enforced FIRST, to see whether new law are needed at all.
>The National Instant Background Check system receives complete and timely data from only about 1/3 of states, and pretty much no information from at least 10 states, making the much touted Brady Bill mandate for background checks essentially moot in much of the country, and allowing people like the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns over the counter when he should have been stopped cold at the gun store. Further, district attorneys do not typically prosecute people for attempting to buy guns when they are already prohibited from doing so. How will mandatory background checks for all (public, legal) gun sales help anything?
>The BATFE is not funded sufficiently to do random inventory checks on licensed gun dealers. This allows some shady dealers to essentially act as wholesalers for criminals, and provides for an easy avenue for Mexican criminal groups to obtain guns. (Side note: the cartels get guns from all over the place, including from military deserters and from a variety of Central American countries, but all we hear in the U.S. is that guns in Mexico are our fault. Sorry, not buying it)
>It seems to be fairly common in some areas (Oakland and LA California are two obvious candidates) for CHILDREN to be provided with firearms by family members so they can "protect themselves" against other children with guns in their community - which is quite clearly against several state and federal laws. Why no massive prosecutions of these people?
>Why did Mrs. Obama get all that mileage out of attending the funeral of Hadiya Pendleton, when she was murdered by gang members (who were too stupid to know they were shooting at someone other than who they meant to), instead of railing about why there is a huge gang problem in Chicago, and proposing some sort of action about that?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Statistics. Mrjinglesusa already posted it. 8.3 deaths on average per incident versus 5.4 deaths, and that is with a disproportionately low amount of high RPM/high capacity to other gun types.
Neither of those numbers refer to full-auto! I don't think I've received a single post from you this thread/topic that hasn't blatantly moved the goalposts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Neither of those numbers refer to full-auto! I don't think I've received a single post from you this thread/topic that hasn't blatantly moved the goalposts.
That's been the Left's agenda on this matter the entire time. I'm just glad my state has the balls to stand up to the feds (even if they are twits in other matters).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 01:58 AM
 
It needs to repeated:

Guns do a spectacular job of making people dead.

Full auto doesn't make someone more dead, it just gets you a Federal weapons violation.


This is so strictly enforced, even mass murderers are given pause.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:53 AM
 
So far as I can remember over at least 20 years of watching, there hasn't been a case of a murder or murders being perpetrated with the use of an actual automatic weapon that was not part of an organized criminal act - i.e. done by an organized crime group. Further, there is no case of one of the legally owned automatic weapons in the U.S. being used by its registered, legal owner to commit an assault. (It takes many thousands of dollars to buy an automatic weapon, and you can only if you pass a very difficult background check at the federal level AND wait many months for the formal permission (via a tax stamp), so it isn't likely for that sort of crime to happen anyway.)

subego, "just a Federal weapons violation" sounds like a ticket for jaywalking. It isn't. Not only is there a pretty significant prison sentence (at the federal level) for such violations, they count as aggravating circumstances for the associated crimes like assault and murder at both state and federal level, and there are mandatory minimum sentences for both the weapons violation and the aggravated crimes... This makes it essentially a case of signing your own "permanent incarceration" order to use an automatic weapon in a crime. Which, as I just said, hasn't happened in the last two decades.

(And on a semantic note, guns do nothing by themselves. They allow a human to do a spectacular job of making holes in things or people, and it is important to note that. Inanimate objects do nothing by themselves, and it does neither side of this discussion any good to continue to imbue guns with some sort of "good or evil"quality._

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 02:57 PM
 
Not all the problems are with the firearms. The laws and justice system is out of whack as well.

You have to separate things down a bit.

The crime of murder should be the crime of murder and looked as just that. If you used a knife, used a gun or a club it should make absolutely no difference to the murder.

When it comes to gun laws, those laws should be in regards to how you store and use the gun. Maybe its illegal to point a gun at a person at any time. Maybe its illegal to transport it with a round chambered. What matters is the exceptions to those rules such as self defense laws that state it is legal to use any weapon for self defense. This conflicts with the no pointing a gun at a person law.


at the end of the day we have to many laws, including laws that clearly do not make sense that conflict with each other. Its not that we need more laws we need more cleaner simple easy to follow and easy to enforce laws and a clear authority with no over lap. IE the Federal Gun Laws should relate to importation of guns nationally, use of guns on federal land and in federal buildings and cross state sales. State laws should deal with the actually laws governing guns inside that state.

its just like how drug laws should follow the same theme. The Federal laws related to importation of drugs, the borders, drug usage and cultivation on federal land and drug transport between states. All other laws regarding drugs such as cultivation, sale, usage should be state level.


the biggest problem is the layers upon layers upon layers of laws and lack of communication and access between resources. When it comes to medical records, while this should be again handled state by state, a federal mandate that links those databases between states or require minimum levels of recording and access electronically can provide that national standard bar that makes medical records a useful tool in deciding should some one be allowed a gun. You don't even have that. So some one that medically considered insane in one state can freely buy a gun in a different state. Gotta fix the holes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 04:08 PM
 
Clerk Kills Robber - YouTube

This is a perfect example of murder. The store owner should have spent 2 years in jail.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 04:12 PM
 
This is a good example of self defense

Elderly Man Shoots Robbers at Internet Cafe - YouTube
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 04:17 PM
 
No one should be immune to criminal charges for the discharge of a weapon against another. Not even cops

Island RCMP officer guilty of assault in shooting - Local - Times Colonist
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Clerk Kills Robber - YouTube

This is a perfect example of murder. The store owner should have spent 2 years in jail.
This is confusing. The shoplifter was off-screen for the duration of the shooting, and the narrator says the shoplifter drove away in the cab, which he ultimately crashed. Did he even die? Is it murder if the gunshot wound would not have been fatal without the car crash? Are you using "murder" to include manslaughter? Would you prescribe the same sentence if the store owner had done exactly the same, but the shoplifter had not crashed the car and not died?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
This is a good example of self defense

Elderly Man Shoots Robbers at Internet Cafe - YouTube
Why is this different? In both cases the shooter followed the thieves as they fled, continuing to fire. This is why I wanted to know if the sentence in the above case would be different had the thief survived, given the same actions by the store owner. Is this only different because the thieves were armed with guns instead of glass bottles?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:00 PM
 
Case 1: No weapon, no violence. Store owner is the aggressor. No shop lifter deserves to be shot. In Canada the store owner would have been charged and most likely received 2-5 Years and I would agree rightly so.

Case 2: They where armed and there was a level of violence from the start it was very reasonable to feel personally threatened and possibility of great harm or death, so the use of force was responsible.

I don't think in case 2 it was appropriate to pull out a gun and cooperation would have been better because it easily could have turned into a full shoot out leaving many hurt not just the robbers. But that didn't happen.

Do I seem unreasonable with my assessment?

Here is a example close to home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApfX-RR-GHg

I agree with the store owner, the police and the woman across the street. All are valid. And I am glad the crown didn't charge him but at the same time it was very wreakless and had one of his bullets injured some one outside of his store he should have been accountable as such and thank god that didn't happen either. For the record if a cop discharges his weapon and a stray hits some one else they get charged like any normal citizen does.

Here is a case where a man killed a cop because the cop failed to announce he was a cop before they stormed the house. The murder charges where dropped. Rightly so even though its tragic. Police have to do things to not get killed.

Basil Parasiris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lastly one im mixed on

Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers | Canada | News | National Post

I think in the end he should got to jail for careless use of a firearm, he could have done so much more before discharging it. Its the cowboy shoot first warn later part that makes me just sway over to the he should be charged side.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
subego, "just a Federal weapons violation" sounds like a ticket for jaywalking. It isn't. Not only is there a pretty significant prison sentence (at the federal level) for such violations, they count as aggravating circumstances for the associated crimes like assault and murder at both state and federal level, and there are mandatory minimum sentences for both the weapons violation and the aggravated crimes... This makes it essentially a case of signing your own "permanent incarceration" order to use an automatic weapon in a crime. Which, as I just said, hasn't happened in the last two decades.
That was definitely the point I was trying to make. You don't want a federal weapons violation. Even psychos know this.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 10:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Case 1: No weapon, no violence. Store owner is the aggressor. No shop lifter deserves to be shot. In Canada the store owner would have been charged and most likely received 2-5 Years and I would agree rightly so.

Case 2: They where armed and there was a level of violence from the start it was very reasonable to feel personally threatened and possibility of great harm or death, so the use of force was responsible.
I agree with that, in as much as brandishing a gun in and of itself constitutes violence (in case 1 he didn't fire the gun until the thief threw a bottle at him, becoming the instigator of the non-brandishing kind of violence).

I don't think in case 2 it was appropriate to pull out a gun and cooperation would have been better because it easily could have turned into a full shoot out leaving many hurt not just the robbers. But that didn't happen.
I'm no expert on this topic, but my impression was that even the most aggressive self-defense laws (stand your ground) don't allow you to pursue a fleeing former-assailant, not after they are already running away. I want the defender to win the confrontation, but he shouldn't have chased them.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2