Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

[kallend 1,959]

This is good.

www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/2016/06/27/b2afebaa-3c79-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

(However, I fully expect some of the resident gun nuts here will tell us that letting abusers have guns is a good idea).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 774]

The timing you have is crazy....I just finished reading the PBS piece on this.


PBS

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

This is good.

www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/supreme-court-domestic-abusers-can-be-banned-from-owning-firearms/2016/06/27/b2afebaa-3c79-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html

(However, I fully expect some of the resident gun nuts here will tell us that letting abusers have guns is a good idea).

"Thomas was joined in part in his dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor"

A bit different than the more common Thomas-Scalia dissents. Suggests there's a fine line between the 6 and the 2 in the decision.

The suppression of rights for misdemeanor convictions should be concerning. Felons (as in felonies) lose their rights. Not for every infraction, misdemeanor, or TRO. A misguided friend of mine plead guilty to trying to pass fake store credits - it was a misdemeanor burglary event. CA rates that as a violent crime that results in loss of gun rights. She deserves her punishment, but that's an inappropriate add on.

Good effort by Derek to try to spur real conversation, but sadly I see the exact same arguments I saw for a decade before I moved the hell on.

But it's simple- angry man, potentially closeted, strikes out against gays in an enclosed, defenseless space. No proposal suggested would have stopped that, unless you're willing to completely throw away the Constitution and accept Feinstein's 5 year blocker for anyone even suspected (or having similar name) of being a bad guy. And that would have done nothing for the people in LA. In either occasion, swapping out that light rifle for a 9mm (or two) with 17 round (or 10) magazines leads to the same result in a crowd with no legal effective forms of self defense.

The next day, another sexually confused white man was arrested in LA. He had driven all the way from Indiana and seemed to have a similar intent in mind, and thankfully was pointed out and caught.

How do we stop someone that's willing to drive half way across the country to do harm, without fundamentally altering our society? You can slightly change the tools, but if the intent is there, the person uses the best tools available.

San Francisco has seen 27 murders to date in 2016. 10 or 11 of them involved stabbing, and that weapon dominates in the area in the Tenderloin where the underbelly can't afford the high prices of guns in our region. It's a pretty clear predictor of what would happen if we successfully eliminated guns. Guns deaths down, stabbing deaths up. Either way, the citizens are at their mercy, unable to carry an equalizing force.

Tragically (or perhaps positively if you feared the GOP beating Clinton in November), it was a shooting last year that elevated Trump for joke to serious contender. A LEO (federal, I believe) left his gun in his car- it was stolen, made its way to an illegal alien who had just been discharged by the city under its Sanctuary policies, rather than sent to ICE, who then shoots women on a tourist bridge while she walked with her parents. We've seen a ridiculous number of guns taken from LE's cars in the last year.

[normiss 774]

If the "best tool available" reduces the number from over 100 people shot and 6-12?
I vote lower numbers.
Add semi-automatic rifles to the NFA where they belong or give me a nuke sub already.

[SkyDekker 1,447]

Quote

Good effort by Derek to try to spur real conversation,

Nit really. Derek likes to guide people into a gotcha moment. His end argument is always the same, it is a constitutionally protected right and therefor should not be touched. There really is no arguing, or discussing anything beyond that.

When any suggestions are made, he wants to know which specific incident would have been prevented. The discussion he wants to have is intellectually dishonest, but he hides it well.

Quote

How do we stop someone that's willing to drive half way across the country to do harm, without fundamentally altering our society?

You don't. The question becomes, why maintain a society in which this happens so often?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Nit really. Derek likes to guide people into a gotcha moment. His end argument is always the same, it is a constitutionally protected right and therefor should not be touched. There really is no arguing, or discussing anything beyond that.

Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded room, constitutional rights are not limitless. But we must be extremely careful when placing limits on them.

Quote

When any suggestions are made, he wants to know which specific incident would have been prevented. The discussion he wants to have is intellectually dishonest, but he hides it well.

I use the question, "what event(s) would have be prevented", as a test. All to often, the answer is "none". In the last example, Kalends suggested 5 new laws to that, maybe, would have prevented one mass shooting a year. Too much restriction for too little gain.

Anti-gunners use the emotion generated by media sensationalism to gain support for more gun laws. Often these gun laws will have little to no impact on the type of incident used to get the law passed. They just want more gun laws, even if they don't reduce mass shootings, etc. That is dishonest.

Quote

You don't. The question becomes, why maintain a society in which this happens so often?

"so, often". Looking at the CDC study, it doesn't happen that often. The media portrays it as happening often and creates a perception that it is a big problem. It isn't.

I don't agree with the concept large limits placed on the 2nd amendment for little to no gains on reducing incidents.

Derek V

[DanG 1]

You never explained how those proposals would limit anyone's constitutional rights. Saying they would be ineffective is not answering that question.

- Dan G

[kallend 1,959]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Nit really. Derek likes to guide people into a gotcha moment. His end argument is always the same, it is a constitutionally protected right and therefor should not be touched. There really is no arguing, or discussing anything beyond that.

Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded room, constitutional rights are not limitless. But we must be extremely careful when placing limits on them.

***When any suggestions are made, he wants to know which specific incident would have been prevented. The discussion he wants to have is intellectually dishonest, but he hides it well.

I use the question, "what event(s) would have be prevented", as a test. All to often, the answer is "none". In the last example, Kalends suggested 5 new laws to that, maybe, would have prevented one mass shooting a year. Too much restriction for too little gain.



If DUI laws prevented one 50 car pile-up each year your logic would say they are a waste of time. However, 50 car pile-ups are not what kills most people in DUI crashes.

Similarly mass shootings are a small % of overall shootings and murders. You are choosing to look at the small picture because it suits you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 774]

Are you as equally upset about sawed off shotguns, hand grenades, silencers and machine guns?
Your 2nd right to access those has been very well regulated to say the least.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You never explained how those proposals would limit anyone's constitutional rights. Saying they would be ineffective is not answering that question.

Any laws restricting gun ownership is limiting constitutional rights. requiring a training class every 2 years places a hurdle to gun ownership that is not in place today. This limits the 2nd amendment.

I am not saying it is a good idea to have gun owners that don't know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto pistol does not mean it has been cleared. I actually believe strongly in firearms training. I agree it would reduce accidents. If someone can barely afford a firearm and cannot afford the class as well, then the requirement has limited this person's right to own a firearm.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If DUI laws prevented one 50 car pile-up each year your logic would say they are a waste of time. However, 50 car pile-ups are not what kills most people in DUI crashes.

Similarly mass shootings are a small % of overall shootings and murders. You are choosing to look at the small picture because it suits you.

No. I am looking at mass shootings because anti-gunners are using them as the catalyst for more gun laws. "We must do something".

I am not saying they are a waste of time, I am saying they infringe on our constitutional right to bear arms. I am not willing to give up even a small part of any right for a small gain.

This is really what the issue boils down to. How much restriction for how much gain. One end of the scale is repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns. No doubt about it, removing all guns from the population will 100% eliminate firearm related incidents. The other end of the scale, is own whatever you want, 0 restrictions. A balance between the two extremes is best. Where exactly is the balance point? How much freedom and how many incidents per year is a good balance? This is the issue.

I believe we are at that balance point now. Looking at what few ideas for increasing restrictions to reduce incidents, it will take large restrictions for small gains.

Derek V

[rushmc 23]

Hooknswoop

Quote

You never explained how those proposals would limit anyone's constitutional rights. Saying they would be ineffective is not answering that question.

Any laws restricting gun ownership is limiting constitutional rights. requiring a training class every 2 years places a hurdle to gun ownership that is not in place today. This limits the 2nd amendment.

I am not saying it is a good idea to have gun owners that don't know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto pistol does not mean it has been cleared. I actually believe strongly in firearms training. I agree it would reduce accidents. If someone can barely afford a firearm and cannot afford the class as well, then the requirement has limited this person's right to own a firearm.

Derek V

You notice they have no issue with placing a 2 year training requirement on a right, but they think be forced to have an ID card to vote is too much of a limit.

Hypocritical at best.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

http://www.billofrights.org/

Quote

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

they felt they needed to bundle up everything that pertains to our ability to keep the government from abusing their power and state it clearly since these are things that governments always use to take power away from the people prior to becoming despotic.

as for the 2nd - IMO - this means a couple things

1 - training requirements? licensing to purchase? this falls under private property and ownership, not the 2nd. (IMO hunting is not a 2nd amendment argument either) as such it seems just fine and that can be regulated. However, the line is crossed, when it becomes used as leverage to deny people the ability to own guns (i.e., the periodicity of retrain or the cost is just out of line, requiring separate training for each gun rather than overall, not allowing current knowledge to be sufficient - such as just a questionaire vs forcing a classroom). Like cars - the license to DRIVE is appropriate. So a license to BUY is not an issue - as long as it's not ratcheted up to where only the connected and wealthy can pass the 'test'.

2 - 2nd amendment - UNLIKE cars, the government should not know how many guns I own. period. If they have a count, they can confiscate. If I have a license to buy, they still don't know if I own zero guns, or a thousand. So registration crosses the line. I don't believe they want to take the guns, but that doesn't matter, they can't be allowed the 'ability' to confiscate.


However - I'm not required to take a test for my right to speak, or my right to due process, etc etc etc.......so it's still not fair even then. Training etc - could be done in high school BTW - for those not already proficient in responsible gun ownership by their families.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,502]

Hooknswoop

... One end of the scale is repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns. No doubt about it, removing all guns from the population will 100% eliminate firearm related incidents...

Not really. Japan has very strict gun laws. Yet the Yakuza gangsters seem to be able to obtain them.

Mexico and much of South and Central America have fairly strict gun laws (not total prohibition, but much of what the "Anti" crowd would like to see implemented) and it's a huge stretch to say they don't have gun violence. Although much of Mexico's gun violence problem is blamed on the US; the full auto rifles, hand grenades and rocket launchers (either RPGs or LAWs) don't come from the US civilian market

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Are you as equally upset about sawed off shotguns, hand grenades, silencers and machine guns?
Your 2nd right to access those has been very well regulated to say the least.

I am not upset at all. The 2nd amendment discussion is very interesting to me.

3 of the 4 things you listed, I can buy. Only 1, suppressors, do I have any interest in. Just extra money ($200) and a longer wait for the background check to be completed. I think the extra requirements for short barreled shot guns and machine guns is a good idea. Although I suspect if the additional requirements were eliminated, nothing would change. No need for hand grenades, even if they a blast (get it?) to use. The extra requirements for suppressors is a bit much, but I can live with it. I can buy a fully automatic rifle. They are expensive to buy and, because they go through ammunition so quickly, expansive to shoot. I've fired fully automatic firearms. I have no desire to spend the money it takes on one for myself.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Sure, you never to 100%. Iw as just trying to keep it simple.

Derek V

[London86 0]

I'd like to put across my view, as a non american, but now living in Texas.

Yep - i certainly chose the state to live where guns are pretty much everywhere

I had a conversation at work with a few people last week about a similar subject.

So from my point of view, i grew up in the UK, until i moved to Texas last January for my job. I had never seen a gun in real life before, except when i went to heathrow airport and you'd see police patrolling with either a handgun, or an MP5 - sometimes both. that was the extent of exposure to guns a standard UK citizen would get.

Then i moved to Texas, i had floods of offers from people i knew in work to go take me shooting, so i accepted and went to a shooting range with 3 guys, who all brought their own weapons with them. when one of the guys turned up with 7 cases (BIG cases) i was literally stunned that people are allowed to own these sort of things, let alone bring them to a shooting range to fire them! I've attached a picture of the guns i fired, i was given tuition and instruction by the guys, and i have to say - it was mega fun, but all i had to do was show my drivers license and sign a form. What's to say i wouldn't turn around and go crazy and annihilate everyone?

I've never understood the need to have the availability of guns, i do understand that people want to protect themselves, but for me - the number of people dying from them in the states alone is crazy.

It's also incredibly strange, I live in downtown Fort Worth - and regularly go out on a Friday night, I feel a lot safer walking around at 2am in the morning by myself than what i did when i was living back in the UK after a night out, despite knowing the fact most people have guns!

I'm never allowed to own a gun on the visa i'm currently on, but i can honestly say i probably wouldn't want to.

I respect the gun culture, i know that the majority of people have been brought up with guns from a young age, but at the same time - I've been brought up without guns at all, it's two completely different worlds.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Any laws restricting gun ownership is limiting constitutional rights. requiring a training class every 2 years places a hurdle to gun ownership that is not in place today. This limits the 2nd amendment.

I am not saying it is a good idea to have gun owners that don't know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto pistol does not mean it has been cleared. I actually believe strongly in firearms training. I agree it would reduce accidents. If someone can barely afford a firearm and cannot afford the class as well, then the requirement has limited this person's right to own a firearm.

I'm sorry for my poor wording. I should have said "You never explained how those proposals would violate anyone's constitutional rights."

Every law limits something. It the laws that violate our rights that are unconstitutional.

I don't think, and the Supreme Court agrees, that limiting the right to bear arms in reasonable ways is unconstitutional. Do you think a free training class required every two years to carry outside of your property is unconstitutional? I'm not sure. I think it is a good idea, but I don't know if it would pass muster.

- Dan G

[kallend 1,959]

wolfriverjoe

***... One end of the scale is repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns. No doubt about it, removing all guns from the population will 100% eliminate firearm related incidents...

Not really. Japan has very strict gun laws. Yet the Yakuza gangsters seem to be able to obtain them.



How many toddlers shoot people in Japan? How many domestic disputes end up in a shooting like the one in Texas this week? How many disgruntled employees shoot up their co-workers in Japan? How many road rage incidents end up in gunfire there?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm sorry for my poor wording. I should have said "You never explained how those proposals would violate anyone's constitutional rights."

Every law limits something. It the laws that violate our rights that are unconstitutional.

I don't think I said they would violate our constitutional rights. If I did, I misspoke. They will restrict our rights.

Quote

Do you think a free training class required every two years to carry outside of your property is unconstitutional?

I am out of my depth, but I would think it would be unconstitutional. Same as requiring a class before you can excersie any of our other rights.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Very interesting perspective. A very smart person once told me, perspective is important, and you only have one.

Quote

I've never understood the need to have the availability of guns, i do understand that people want to protect themselves, but for me - the number of people dying from them in the states alone is crazy.

It's also incredibly strange, I live in downtown Fort Worth - and regularly go out on a Friday night, I feel a lot safer walking around at 2am in the morning by myself than what i did when i was living back in the UK after a night out, despite knowing the fact most people have guns!

2 questions. I am curious if the media hype is affecting your perception of just how many people die from guns in the US. When you say; "the number of people dying from them in the states alone is crazy.". What is the number? Where id you get the number?

Second question, why do you think you feel safer in the US than the UK walking around at 2AM?

Derek V

[normiss 774]

Quote

They will restrict our rights.

The supreme court has already ruled that regulation is not a violation of the 2nd.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I don't think I said they would violate our constitutional rights. If I did, I misspoke. They will restrict our rights.

I agree they will restrict our rights. My problem is that if we use the standard that no restriction on any rights is allowable, then what are we talking for? Speed limits restrict my right to freedom of movement. Are speed limits unallowable? Reasonable restrictions are not unconstitutional. I personally think most of the suggestions from kallend are reasonable and constitutional. Do you disagree?

Quote

I am out of my depth, but I would think it would be unconstitutional. Same as requiring a class before you can excersie any of our other rights.

The Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say you have the right to do that everywhere. That's why I would limit the training requirement to those who wanted to carry in public spaces. What is your opinion on that?

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The supreme court has already ruled that regulation is not a violation of the 2nd.

Agreed.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

My problem is that if we use the standard that no restriction on any rights is allowable, then what are we talking for?

My position is not, "no restriction on any rights is allowable". I am not sure why you think it is.

My position is that we must be extremely careful with adding restrictions to constitutional rights. Any further restrictions must be result in significant gains. For example, the magazine limit and universal background check laws here in Colorado. They added a restriction to our constitutional right for zero gain.

Quote

The Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say you have the right to do that everywhere. That's why I would limit the training requirement to those who wanted to carry in public spaces. What is your opinion on that?

That is one way to look at it. Another way is the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can only have them at home. I would think that if they meant you can only have firearms at home, they would have said so. They did not put that restriction into the amendment.

Derek V