Gun Control

[Spoonist]

I know when you say gun heavy country you mean the US but even in less gun heavy countries in europe we still have large piles of illegal guns. Germany for instance.

Other countries in Europe were more on my mind- but this illustrates the issue. The registration requirements simply aren't being met, because it's not like the German police can kick down every door and exhaustively search every building in Germany for illegal firearms.

This misses one of the finer points with restrictive legislation. In the other thread with HDS and KSith we talked a little bit about that.
From here
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3708028
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3708095
If you have things like gun licenses instead of a general right to carry and combine that with laws that target specific high risks, like violent career criminals not getting such licenses or getting them revoked.
Then you have given your police officers a very effective tool.
That means that the next time there is a war brewing between bandidos and hells angels the police can start doing frisks and searches and any firearms found regardless of whether the weapon was procured legally, can be confiscated and depending on evidence even some can be arrested and spend some nights in jail. While if you have a general rule that all can carry regardless, the officers would have to give back the firearms.
Same thing with the domestic abuse legislation in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_V ... er_Gun_Ban
The officer getting a call to a domestic situation can check the records and if the person has such a conviction, then they are not allowed to possess/carry a firearm. Hence regardless of everything else the police can confiscate the weapon. While if you didn't have such legislation, if the officer does not have sufficient grounds for arrest they would have to leave any found firearms in a potentially "hot" situation.
etc etc
So its not about there being illegal weapons, its about the ability to confiscate such weapons.
Now the current trend in the US is to remove such tools by having more and more generic free-to-carry legislation. And by appealing such specific legislation as there is like the big school-guns bruha, was it last year?

In such cases its not actually about the 2nd amendment or the 'right' to own private arms. But rather the restrictions we put on them to help officers do their job.

[His Divine Shadow]

What I said had nothing todo with the legality of carrying or anything like that.

[Beowulf]

The problem with the domestic violence gun ban is how misdemeanor domestic violence is defined. It's as easy for a prosecutor to gain a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence as it is to get someone on the sex offender registry. In most states, any touching in an argument, regardless of intent to cause harm, or harm incurred, is sufficient. So if your partner is blocking the way to the door, and you brush past them to get out, touching them, and either of you mention that to the officer when they show up, congrats, you now have a domestic violence conviction. This can occur if neither you nor your partner want prosecution to go forward (for obvious reasons). Note the converse: you get into a fight, and your partner decides they want to hurt you, and complains to the officer that you touched her on the way out the door. You = screwed, for life.

[Spoonist]

The problem with the domestic violence gun ban is ...

Its worse than that. Its just another example of what happens when good legislative ideas are ruined by polititians.
Like if you just hit your wife and get convicted, you cannot carry. While if you shot her dead and serve your sentance, then you can carry so that you can shoot the next one as well.

Bad legislation like that is stupid, but as such it should be fixed - not removed.

[Broomstick]

The problem with the domestic violence gun ban is ...

Its worse than that. Its just another example of what happens when good legislative ideas are ruined by polititians.
Like if you just hit your wife and get convicted, you cannot carry. While if you shot her dead and serve your sentance, then you can carry so that you can shoot the next one as well.

I don't think so - there's no such thing as "misdemeanor murder" and convicted felons lose their gun privileges in every state I'm aware of. That's something that extends past the end of the prison/probation, the lose of gun rights is for life.

[Beowulf]

Anyone convicted of a felony is barred by federal law from owning guns. I disagree with the law, in that I don't believe non-violent felons should necessarily lose that right, but I'm not as concerned with it, as it's harder to get fucked over in the same manner as misdemeanor domestic violence (just remember not to talk to the damn cops without a lawyer). All unlawful killing is a felony, AFAIK.

[Broomstick]

Which means unless a killing is ruled self-defense, taking a human life (even if it wasn't with a gun) removes your 2nd Amendment rights permanently. The only exceptions would be some very limited circumstances where committing a misdemeanor leads to another person's death without intention to harm others, basically contributing to an accidental death, but that's not at all a common circumstance.

[Spoonist]

I stand corrected. Didn't know about the felony ruling - gotta check that out in context.

[Jub]

I mean impossible to access, period. I wasn't saying it was realistic, but if you're going to say that something doesn't matter then you should be sure that what you're saying is actually true.

Jub, at a certain point it doesn't pay to try and nail down the details farther in a conversation.

When "I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about real life" becomes a valid reason to not understand what you're saying, you've taken nitpicking too far.

The position that no level of gun control will help seems equal crazy from my point of view. If the barrier to entry is set higher than it is currently, to the point where any criminal/future criminal who's serious about needing a gun has to deal with organized crime to get one, I think that will help. I've also already admitted that the work required to get America to this level will be insane. It's just that I don't see the US rebuilding it's mental health system, creating strong social safety nets, reducing the wage gap, reducing racial/social tensions, creating fulfilling jobs, and etc. any time soon.

Also, if you made the ability to produce weapons the barrier to entry you're going to drive the costs up and make them harder to acquire. Not to mention that if an amendment can be made it can be stricken, so, theoretically, the second amendment shouldn't be a barrier to getting rid of weapons. Of course much of the US worships a stagnant document with blind devotion so that has no real chance of happening.

Jub, you remind me of Tritio in the other thread- you sound bitter that there's simply no real interest in changing gun policy in the US.

What I can't understand looking at that is why you think this is so important that it makes sense to actively resent all those people who aren't doing what you want. I can't see a reason why a gun ban is desirable, except for some kind of obscure, abstract idea of tidiness. Not in general- I see why it might make sense in some place at some time, but that can't be extended to all places and all times.

So 'blaming' American gun culture on blind devotion to an amendment you think ought to be changed... why do you care that it be changed? Why want it to be changed? What's the point, if we can't find any logical proof that it would really make things better? All that pushing the issue does is make you look obsessive anyway.

You'd need an organization with powers and resources more like the Stasi to get the job done. It would cause more problems than it solved.

I'm pretty much making parody arguments at this point, because the other side claims that no amount of gun reduction will help. Almost all the people making these arguments are from the US. Thus I attack the law that allowed them to grow up with these views.

[General Zod]

The position that no level of gun control will help seems equal crazy from my point of view.

That's not the argument, but keep charging those windmills.

If the barrier to entry is set higher than it is currently, to the point where any criminal/future criminal who's serious about needing a gun has to deal with organized crime to get one, I think that will help. I've also already admitted that the work required to get America to this level will be insane. It's just that I don't see the US rebuilding it's mental health system, creating strong social safety nets, reducing the wage gap, reducing racial/social tensions, creating fulfilling jobs, and etc. any time soon.

What makes you think removing guns completely is going to be any easier?

[Broomstick]

What, do you think the US has no gun control? That's flat out ridiculous and contradicted by the facts. Even the states with the loosest laws regarding guns have some gun control measures in place. As noted, felons can not own guns. I can't think of a single state that does not have some provision forbidding the mentally disturbed from owning guns. There are licensing requirements in all 50 states.

Now, arguing that there is not enough gun control in the US is a valid position, but I grow very weary of those who refuse to grasp the reality that even if there isn't, by their standards, sufficient control there is very much some control. It's not a lawless playing field.

The position that no level of gun control will help seems equal crazy from my point of view. If the barrier to entry is set higher than it is currently, to the point where any criminal/future criminal who's serious about needing a gun has to deal with organized crime to get one, I think that will help.

I think you vastly underestimate how pervasive organized crime is. It's not like the mafia live in a walled compound somewhere and you need private invitation to speak to someone in the organization. It would no more prevent criminals from obtaining guns than outlawing marijuana keeps it out of the hands of citizens. It would just make guns somewhat more difficult to obtain, and certainly more expensive, but the mob and the gangs will happily sell guns for a profit - they already do so. How do you think convicted criminals obtain weapons when they already can't obtain them legally?

I've also already admitted that the work required to get America to this level will be insane. It's just that I don't see the US rebuilding it's mental health system, creating strong social safety nets, reducing the wage gap, reducing racial/social tensions, creating fulfilling jobs, and etc. any time soon.

It's not just that - you'd have to alter the constitution to achieve that level of "gun control". It is possible to amend it, but extremely difficult.

Also, if you made the ability to produce weapons the barrier to entry you're going to drive the costs up and make them harder to acquire. Not to mention that if an amendment can be made it can be stricken, so, theoretically, the second amendment shouldn't be a barrier to getting rid of weapons. Of course much of the US worships a stagnant document with blind devotion so that has no real chance of happening.

Riiiiiight... that's why so many who "worship" it want to alter it to, say, outlaw abortion completely, it's such an inconceivable notion. It was deliberately made hard to amend the constitution, it's not an accident, the difficulty is a feature and not a bug. You really do have to get 75%+ of the nation on board with any proposed change to make it stick.

Strictly speaking, no, you can't strike out part of the Constitution - there are some frankly embarrassing clauses still in there as historical fossils - you can only add to it. You could, yes, in theory add an amendment that restricts or even forbids civilian ownership of guns but it's so damned unlikely you're ever going to succeed at that that no one serious proposes it. Better to attempt to pass normal legislation and justify it on the basis of protecting citizens (the root of the current prohibitions) as that is a type of limitation on fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court and long established in the US. Just as you're not permitted to use your right of free speech to hurt someone else, or your right to practice your religion as a justification for harming others, you're not permitted to use your right to bear arms to hurt other people outside of self-defense.

I'm pretty much making parody arguments at this point, because the other side claims that no amount of gun reduction will help.

Actually, some of us ARE in favor of "gun reduction", the argument is at what point you get into diminishing returns, or at what point the resources required would be better spent on other social problems that might be contributing to the objectionable situation. Of course, that requires a nuanced approach and actual thought, which not everyone in this thread might be capable of.

Almost all the people making these arguments are from the US. Thus I attack the law that allowed them to grow up with these views.

If the "law" (and really, it's not so much a law as a mechanism to limit lawmaking on the subject) is such a predeterminer of a person's opinion how on Earth did the US develop a staunch anti-gun contingent? If the matter was as settled as you imply there would be no National Rifle Association, no debate over the Brady Bill, and no variation from state to state or municipality to municipality across the US but that does not reflect reality.

[General Zod]

Let's put it this way. Instead of enacting some retarded ban that would turn Americans into criminals overnight, why not regulation that isn't useless?

You want to own a semi-automatic? Sure, pass this safety course, pass this marksmanship course, and pass these psychological exams, and we'll give you a license to buy one. You have to re-qualify every five years, have fun. Add various levels of difficulty according to the type of weapon they want to buy. We already make people go through weeks and weeks of training just to drive, but nothing for gun ownership.

[Mr Bean]

What kind of perverse incentive is it to make marksmanship a requirement for gun ownership. I could understand a familiarization and safety test like one needs to pass in order to get a drivers license... But Zod are you going to make people pass Army Marksmanship training in order to get a handgun?

I can see that going so well for the "Added levels of difficulty according to the weapon"
In order to own this rifle you must demonstrated your ability to hit a moving target twice at two hundred yards from a sixty foot height with no more than four rounds.

Also I assume your going to put the gun buyer on the hook for the two thousand dollar psychological test.

[General Zod]

What kind of perverse incentive is it to make marksmanship a requirement for gun ownership. I could understand a familiarization and safety test like one needs to pass in order to get a drivers license... But Zod are you going to make people pass Army Marksmanship training in order to get a handgun?

I can see that going so well for the "Added levels of difficulty according to the weapon"
In order to own this rifle you must demonstrated your ability to hit a moving target twice at two hundred yards from a sixty foot height with no more than four rounds.

Also I assume your going to put the gun buyer on the hook for the two thousand dollar psychological test.

It doesn't have to be some intensive army level marksmanship. Just enough basic skill to show that you can actually hit what you're aiming at and won't go wildly firing at all angles. I don't see it as much different from being able to pass a vision test for driving a car, but you're basically nitpicking. :v

Obviously all of this is at the gun-buyer's own expense, but guess who wouldn't have been able to buy semi-autos if they required a psychological exam to purchase? Oh right, the Aurora shooter. Plenty of shooters spend more than $2k on guns and ammo anyway, so a psych exam should be chump change.

[Jub]

I've done some thinking and, even if I find some of the arguments for people needing/wanting to own guns to be silly, responding in kind won't get us anywhere. I'm going to applogize for the less than respectable argument above and try to put forth an idea that people might actually find reasonable.

Would people be against the idea that laws be changed so that guns carried in public need to be unloaded and carried openly with the barrels plugged with easy to see metal barrel plugs that are rated to stop at least a single round from that model of weapon. Make stiff fines for people caught with weapons not carried in this manner and then create exceptions for weapons carried by civillian security agents or people otherwise determined to have a need to carry a loaded weapon. The other exception to the law would be at designated hunting or target shooting areas.

Any weapons found carried unloaded and safe, but without proper barrel plugs would be casue for a fine with repeat offenses being cause for seizure of. Weapons found loaded would be made a crimial offense with jail time attached. The alternative would be carrying the weapon unloaded and safe inside properly locked and secured gun case. This way if police see a weapon carried without an easily visable plug they can reasonably ask to see carry papers and can remove any weapons found carried in an illegal manner.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to try and make things safer while we wait for the changes needed to cause a major drop in crime?

[General Zod]

I've done some thinking and, even if I find some of the arguments for people needing/wanting to own guns to be silly, responding in kind won't get us anywhere. I'm going to applogize for the less than respectable argument above and try to put forth an idea that people might actually find reasonable.

Would people be against the idea that laws be changed so that guns carried in public need to be unloaded and carried openly with the barrels plugged with easy to see metal barrel plugs that are rated to stop at least a single round from that model of weapon. Make stiff fines for people caught with weapons not carried in this manner and then create exceptions for weapons carried by civillian security agents or people otherwise determined to have a need to carry a loaded weapon. The other exception to the law would be at designated hunting or target shooting areas.

Any weapons found carried unloaded and safe, but without proper barrel plugs would be casue for a fine with repeat offenses being cause for seizure of. Weapons found loaded would be made a crimial offense with jail time attached. The alternative would be carrying the weapon unloaded and safe inside properly locked and secured gun case. This way if police see a weapon carried without an easily visable plug they can reasonably ask to see carry papers and can remove any weapons found carried in an illegal manner.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to try and make things safer while we wait for the changes needed to cause a major drop in crime?

How is this fundamentally different from "ban all guns"?

[Jub]

I've done some thinking and, even if I find some of the arguments for people needing/wanting to own guns to be silly, responding in kind won't get us anywhere. I'm going to applogize for the less than respectable argument above and try to put forth an idea that people might actually find reasonable.

Would people be against the idea that laws be changed so that guns carried in public need to be unloaded and carried openly with the barrels plugged with easy to see metal barrel plugs that are rated to stop at least a single round from that model of weapon. Make stiff fines for people caught with weapons not carried in this manner and then create exceptions for weapons carried by civillian security agents or people otherwise determined to have a need to carry a loaded weapon. The other exception to the law would be at designated hunting or target shooting areas.

Any weapons found carried unloaded and safe, but without proper barrel plugs would be casue for a fine with repeat offenses being cause for seizure of. Weapons found loaded would be made a crimial offense with jail time attached. The alternative would be carrying the weapon unloaded and safe inside properly locked and secured gun case. This way if police see a weapon carried without an easily visable plug they can reasonably ask to see carry papers and can remove any weapons found carried in an illegal manner.

Does this seem like a reasonable way to try and make things safer while we wait for the changes needed to cause a major drop in crime?

How is this fundamentally different from "ban all guns"?

It doesn't ban guns, you can still own a gun, you just need to carry it unloaded while moving from place to place and trust that the added police powers will mean that you shouldn't need to carry a loaded weapon.It saves the headache of having to actually try and remove weapons from people unless they violate the new law.

[General Zod]

It doesn't ban guns, you can still own a gun, you just need to carry it unloaded while moving from place to place and trust that the added police powers will mean that you shouldn't need to carry a loaded weapon.It saves the headache of having to actually try and remove weapons from people unless they violate the new law.

How does this keep weapons out of the hands of psychotics and the otherwise mentally ill?

[Jub]

It doesn't ban guns, you can still own a gun, you just need to carry it unloaded while moving from place to place and trust that the added police powers will mean that you shouldn't need to carry a loaded weapon.It saves the headache of having to actually try and remove weapons from people unless they violate the new law.

How does this keep weapons out of the hands of psychotics and the otherwise mentally ill?

It isn't meant to solve everthing by itself, it's meant so that any officer that sees a gun carried without these saftey features can stop the person and ensure they're permitted to carry that weapon loaded. If they aren't it gives police options for how to deal with the situation. The cost of the program should be offset by fines given for the people who will transport weapons without barrel plugs or cases.

[General Zod]

It doesn't ban guns, you can still own a gun, you just need to carry it unloaded while moving from place to place and trust that the added police powers will mean that you shouldn't need to carry a loaded weapon.It saves the headache of having to actually try and remove weapons from people unless they violate the new law.

How does this keep weapons out of the hands of psychotics and the otherwise mentally ill?

It isn't meant to solve everthing by itself, it's meant so that any officer that sees a gun carried without these saftey features can stop the person and ensure they're permitted to carry that weapon loaded. If they aren't it gives police options for how to deal with the situation. The cost of the program should be offset by fines given for the people who will transport weapons without barrel plugs or cases.

If someone wanted to commit a crime why would they carry it out in the open where a cop could see it?

[Jub]

If someone wanted to commit a crime why would they carry it out in the open where a cop could see it?

Good question, some criminals are stupid. This is really just an easy to implement law that will help pick some low hanging fruit as far as gun crime goes. Not I said easy to implement, passing it nationally would be like pulling teeth.

[RogueIce]

If someone wanted to commit a crime why would they carry it out in the open where a cop could see it?

Good question, some criminals are stupid. This is really just an easy to implement law that will help pick some low hanging fruit as far as gun crime goes. Not I said easy to implement, passing it nationally would be like pulling teeth.

So basically your law is only going to be effective against the "low hanging fruit" of criminals who'd probably get themselves caught anyway by being too dumb to breathe, while creating needless hoops for all the legitimate gun owners to jump through all to accomplish...what exactly?

[General Zod]

If someone wanted to commit a crime why would they carry it out in the open where a cop could see it?

Good question, some criminals are stupid. This is really just an easy to implement law that will help pick some low hanging fruit as far as gun crime goes. Not I said easy to implement, passing it nationally would be like pulling teeth.

It sounds like a feel-good measure that's going to accomplish fuck all. In the meantime testing requirements to own a handgun would be more palatable and have a more significant impact.

[Jub]

If someone wanted to commit a crime why would they carry it out in the open where a cop could see it?

Good question, some criminals are stupid. This is really just an easy to implement law that will help pick some low hanging fruit as far as gun crime goes. Note I said easy to implement, passing it nationally would be like pulling teeth.

So basically your law is only going to be effective against the "low hanging fruit" of criminals who'd probably get themselves caught anyway by being too dumb to breathe, while creating needless hoops for all the legitimate gun owners to jump through all to accomplish...what exactly?

Except that we know that not all stupid criminals will get caught before hurting people. If this saves even a few lives isn't that worth more than pissing off a few gun owners that dislike the idea of not being able to carry a loaded gun?

[General Zod]

Except that we know that not all stupid criminals will get caught before hurting people. If this saves even a few lives isn't that worth more than pissing off a few gun owners that dislike the idea of not being able to carry a loaded gun?

You remind me of the Republicans down in Florida that supported drug testing people before they allowed them to claim public assistance benefits because some of them might have been abusing their benefits to buy drugs. I'm sure people used the same excuse to pass prohibition in the 20s.