0
normiss

Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

Recommended Posts

All this talk of "repeal" and "well regulated" is wasted. The 2nd amendment is NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. EVER. Your SC has already ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions on firearms. And that is where the only real fight will be.

So far the people have elected enough gun ownership supporters that most states can not or will not impose restrictions. The people have spoken. If you want restrictions, get politically involved.

It's America, love it or apply to join us here in Canada!
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

IMO, "well regulated" and "reasonable restrictions" are the same thing.




I agree, and your SC seems to as well. The obstacle is not the constitution. It's political. It is not possible to get reasonable restrictions through Congress, or most state legislative bodies.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

I suppose people like dekker that think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment



Only if you want to see some results in a few decades. Other then that, don't repeal it and continue to see multitudes of mass shootings.



The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think. ;)

This is a violence/terrorism issue, stop focusing on the tool.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

All this talk of "repeal" and "well regulated" is wasted.



Tell that to dekker. . .

I've already provided some perspective and given plenty of information on how we can address our violent culture and impose additional reasonable restrictions to continue reducing our gun related crime rate. When you guys finally get your thoughts together, let me know and we can discuss the issue like normal people - until then, I'm pretty much done here.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Lobbyists.
The one thing most people want fixed in politics.
Unless it's this issue.
:S



There is no use blaming lobbyists. They are paid in cash, and the cash comes from the people. The majority of Americans support nearly unrestricted gun rights. The NRA is an organization of committed people who put their money where their mouths are. Americans who have the opposing view are not nearly as committed. The people are getting what the people want. They are willing to pay the price in blood. Bottom line.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think.



Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals?

If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is good.

[urlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/...711fd2125_story.html[/url]

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



Ok, I'll take the bait but surprise you...we agree...which is of course rare but on this point...we agree.

In these cases, legal due process identifies individuals that have committed violent acts. Be it violent acts classified as misdemeanors or felonies, the individual has been legally identified as someone who cannot be trusted with deadly weapons and/or act responsibly with those weapons in their possession.

The problem I DO have with denying firearms purchases to individuals on the "No Fly" list is also one of due process. They may be suspect for various reasons but have not been convicted of a criminal act that would deny them purchase. Call me old fashioned but I still do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty...not suspect.

With respect to "gun nut". I'll have you know that Ted Kennedy's Volkswagen has killed more people than any of my guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

The problem I DO have with denying firearms purchases to individuals on the "No Fly" list is also one of due process. They may be suspect for various reasons but have not been convicted of a criminal act that would deny them purchase. Call me old fashioned but I still do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty...not suspect.




recognize:

1 - The 'no fly - no buy' crowd are advocating for a subjective removal of people's rights (travel, and property ownership). Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

2 - Trump wants to restrict travel and immigration based on nothing but subjective critieria. Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

and these people THINK they are on opposite sides - bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it

Politics is a freaking tragedy and comedy all at the same time.

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan A: make it more difficult for legally barred people (felons, people under court or restraining orders, seriously mentally ill) to obtain guns by requiring a background check on every purchase, and by prosecuting people who sell without the background check. Downside: adds an inconvenience factor to private sales.

Plan B: wait until legally barred people obtain a gun and use it to commit a violent crime. Then prosecute them and jail them forever. Downside: dead or maimed victims are a prerequisite before action is taken. Significant cost of incarcerating people for extended periods. Significant cost associated with indigent defense. Social and financial costs associated with significantly larger, more intrusive police presence and control.

Obviously, plan B is much better! :S

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Plan A: make it more difficult for legally barred people (felons, people under court or restraining orders, seriously mentally ill) to obtain guns by requiring a background check on every purchase, and by prosecuting people who sell without the background check. Downside: adds an inconvenience factor to private sales.



Adds an inconvenience factor and added cost to private sales, without actually having any impact of firearm related violence.

Quote

Plan B: wait until legally barred people obtain a gun and use it to commit a violent crime. Then prosecute them and jail them forever. Downside: dead or maimed victims are a prerequisite before action is taken. Significant cost of incarcerating people for extended periods. Significant cost associated with indigent defense. Social and financial costs associated with significantly larger, more intrusive police presence and control.



I guess you could prosecute them before they illegally obtain a firearm, but that has obvious problems associated with it. People barred from owning firearms are going to obtain them. I am not saying make it easy for them.

Increased police force size and budgets have been shown to be very effective in reducing firearm-related violence. Gun-control laws have been ineffective. The way forward is obvious. Spend the money, enforce the laws.

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

***The problem I DO have with denying firearms purchases to individuals on the "No Fly" list is also one of due process. They may be suspect for various reasons but have not been convicted of a criminal act that would deny them purchase. Call me old fashioned but I still do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty...not suspect.




recognize:

1 - The 'no fly - no buy' crowd are advocating for a subjective removal of people's rights (travel, and property ownership). Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

2 - Trump wants to restrict travel and immigration based on nothing but subjective critieria. Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

and these people THINK they are on opposite sides - bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it

Politics is a freaking tragedy and comedy all at the same time.

Yes, being able to own a gun and being able to reside in your country of birth are clearly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think.



Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals?

If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place?



No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed.

Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change.

The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one.

Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it



Very true. It's the same principle as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's just a matter of the ends justifying the means....as long as they are my ends.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rehmwa

***The problem I DO have with denying firearms purchases to individuals on the "No Fly" list is also one of due process. They may be suspect for various reasons but have not been convicted of a criminal act that would deny them purchase. Call me old fashioned but I still do believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty...not suspect.




recognize:

1 - The 'no fly - no buy' crowd are advocating for a subjective removal of people's rights (travel, and property ownership). Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

2 - Trump wants to restrict travel and immigration based on nothing but subjective critieria. Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries

and these people THINK they are on opposite sides - bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it

Politics is a freaking tragedy and comedy all at the same time.

So you see no difference between US citizen rights and foreign citizen rights?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolas

***

Quote

The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think.



Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals?

If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place?



No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed.

Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change.

The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one.

Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed.

Ah ok. Yes, fully agreed. It would take quite some time before any positive benefits would arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bolas

So you see no difference between US citizen rights and foreign citizen rights?



I understand your point, but my point is just more general than that

what I see - both are willing to sacrifice civil rights, individual freedoms, and more, simply as a knee jerk reaction for only an illusion of safety

a 'watch' list.....means there isn't any evidence of any wrongdoing. That's why you 'watch' them instead of arrest them - citizen or visitor, if you are suspicious, watching is cautious and smart. Taking unjustified actions is a basic violation - whether it's travel, property ownership, etc.

I don't like your internet activity (voting record, the color of your skin, whatever) - let's put you on a list and watch you....... What the hell - let's take away your rights just a little bit, and only for cosmetic reasons - it's election year...... what the hell - let's lock you up in a camp........



the whole argument "If they can't fly, then they shouldn't also get guns......" is really deceptive. It completely hides the fact that they are on a 'no fly list' defined by the fact that they aren't guilty (yet) of anything, just suspicious, or even just some unknown bureaucrat doesn't like them much. yet these same people demand 100% proof of guilt for any conviction and scream civil rights violations, but here, you can be on a list based just on making some observer uncomfortable.

I really look forward to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being able to arbitrarily put people on a "no civil rights" list that they can control.

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******

Quote

The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think.



Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals?

If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place?



No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed.

Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change.

The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one.

Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed.

Ah ok. Yes, fully agreed. It would take quite some time before any positive benefits would arise.

If they ever did...
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooknswoop

Quote

Plan A: make it more difficult for legally barred people (felons, people under court or restraining orders, seriously mentally ill) to obtain guns by requiring a background check on every purchase, and by prosecuting people who sell without the background check. Downside: adds an inconvenience factor to private sales.



***Adds an inconvenience factor and added cost to private sales, without actually having any impact of firearm related violence.

In the Iowa model, the cost and inconvenience is borne by the buyer, who has a background check done by the police/sheriff who then issue a permit to buy any number of guns and good for a year (if I recall correctly). The only inconvenience to the seller is having to ask to see the permit. Rushmc also takes a photo of the permit and they buyer, which is smart but not legally required. On what basis do you say such a system could not have an impact on firearm related violence? Iowa is the only state I am aware of with such a system. Not only is the violent crime rate there low already (due to demographic factors such as small & primarily rural population), any possible benefit might also be reduced by the ease of buying in an adjacent state. The only way to test the effectiveness of universal background checks would be to apply them everywhere.


Quote

***Plan B: wait until legally barred people obtain a gun and use it to commit a violent crime. Then prosecute them and jail them forever. Downside: dead or maimed victims are a prerequisite before action is taken. Significant cost of incarcerating people for extended periods. Significant cost associated with indigent defense. Social and financial costs associated with significantly larger, more intrusive police presence and control.



I guess you could prosecute them before they illegally obtain a firearm, but that has obvious problems associated with it. People barred from owning firearms are going to obtain them. I am not saying make it easy for them.

Increased police force size and budgets have been shown to be very effective in reducing firearm-related violence. Gun-control laws have been ineffective. The way forward is obvious. Spend the money, enforce the laws.

Derek V

Georgia (where I live) has quite strict laws regarding gun possession by felons, which are enforced, but this has not reduced the violent crime rate, at least not so you'd notice. Every evening the first 15-20 minutes of the Atlanta evening news is full of story after story of stupid senseless shootings. A few years ago two police officers were shot, and one died, at the hand of a felon who had been released from prison only a year before. This fellow (Jamie Hood, so you can google him and check my story) had no difficulty obtaining multiple handguns which he used in the course of his drug-dealing business. In addition to being convicted of murdering one officer (Buddy Christian) and wounding a second, he was convicted of murdering a city worker just to send a "message" to a friend of that victim. Where did he get his guns? No news story reported on any effort by the police to discover that, and certainly no-one was prosecuted for giving or selling him guns. Indeed it may have been perfectly legal for the seller to do business with him, as long as the seller was not aware of Mr. Hood's status as a convicted armed robber. So, what do people mean when they say "enforce the law"? If there is no background check requirement for private sales, anyone can sell to anyone. It's true the buyer has committed a crime if they are barred from possessing a firearm, but the police have no way of knowing that the transaction ever occurred. There are only a couple of ways they could find out. One would be if the buyer later committed a crime with that firearm, or at least did something dumb enough that could be stopped for probable cause. The other would be if a police officer was detailed to follow and observe every felon upon their release, for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that would be unconstitutional, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

Many people believe that increased police activity suppresses crime, but that is not always easy to prove. See here for a discussion of the subject. Crime is also influenced by other factors, especially economic activity, and so it tends to cycle up and down. Typically communities will respond to periods of high crime by hiring more police, so police staffing will generally also cycle up and down, lagging behind crime by a couple of years. As a result police staffing will often increase just when crime is already peaked and starting to decrease, due to completely different factors, and it will appear that more police caused the crime to go down. This is not to say that a heavy police presence can't discourage crime, at least in local area, it just means a causal connection is not easy to prove.

A problem (or so it seems to me) with the approach of a heavy police presence and strict enforcement of every law and ordinance (also known as the "broken windows" strategy) is that it tends to spawn other problems that end up being counterproductive. Such approaches are notorious for breeding unconstitutional practices such as stopping/searching people without probable cause to believe they have committed any crime. Often communities try to recoup the cost of the police staffing by creating a multitude of fineable offenses, which end up trapping especially the already poor in poverty when they are repeatedly arrested and jailed for being unable to pay hefty fines that result from "offenses" such as parking facing the wrong way on the roadside. Perhaps most insidious, entire communities end up with most of the adult male population in-and-out of jail, so kids grow up without any male parent, a situation that lends itself to future problems for those kids, especially the boys. This destruction of the two-parent family has been one of the worst effects of the so-called "war on drugs", in my opinion. Indeed, the "war on drugs" is the best example I can think of to show that strict enforcement and draconian penalties is not able to change well-established human behaviors. If that approach failed in the case of drug use, why should we expect it to work for people who have already shown their predisposition towards violent crime?

I'm not saying that there is not a place for intelligent, community-oriented policing, there obviously is. I do think the problem is too big and complicated for simplistic solutions, such as overwhelming police presence, and the cost might be worse than the cure in many places. It needs to become much more difficult to buy a gun without a background check, I think, and that requires enforcement on both the buyer and the seller (as exists with alcohol sales). There needs to be a much higher level of trust between communities and their police, so the "code of silence" disappears and police can get the information they need to solve a higher percentage of violent crimes. I think we should also reconsider some of the life-long consequences of a felony conviction. It doesn't make sense to me to bar felons from many kinds of jobs, for life, if we expect them to stay away from future crime. In Georgia, felons cannot ever work at any career that requires a state license, such as teacher, contractor, or even a barber or beautician, even if the job has no relation to their crime. I also think felons should be able to have their voting and second amendment rights restored, if they can go a period of time (say, 5 years) without re-offending. Providing an opportunity to work, and an incentive to stay on the right side of the law, could go some way towards reducing the pressures that tend to steer felons back towards crime.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the whole argument "If they can't fly, then they shouldn't also get guns......" is really deceptive. It completely hides the fact that they are on a 'no fly list' defined by the fact that they aren't guilty (yet) of anything, just suspicious, or even just some unknown bureaucrat doesn't like them much. yet these same people demand 100% proof of guilt for any conviction and scream civil rights violations, but here, you can be on a list based just on making some observer uncomfortable.

I agree with this completely.

Besides raising civil liberties issues, I'm not even sure such bans are good police practice.

If someone is on a "watch" list, all that should happen is that they get looked at a little more closely. If they go to a dealer and buy a gun, that sale should go through but also perhaps prompt someone to take a look and decide if they are a real threat or not, and if they are then increase surveillance and see if any real evidence materializes. If someone is denied a gun purchase for no legitimate reason, they will immediately know they are being watched. If they really are plotting something, wouldn't that just prompt them to encrypt their phone and go buy something off of Craig's List? I'm sure it's easier to keep tabs on someone if you don't make it obvious that you are watching them.

I also think the "no-fly" list is idiotic. You can be pulled out of line for "enhanced screening" at random; I saw this happen to several people while waiting for a flight from Ecuador recently. If there is reason to suspect someone might be planning something on a flight, it's easy to give them a really close examination without telegraphing that they are under specific surveillance.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have had the universal background check here in Colorado for the last 3 years. It has done nothing.

Regarding private sales here in CO;

If someone could legally buy a gun before, they still can, it just costs more and adds the convince of having to go to a gun shop to have the background check done.

If someone could not legally buy a gun, they know that and they buy one illegally, same as before the law was enacted. If they get caught with the gun, they are prosecuted. There is no way to trace where they bought the gun, same as before the law was passed.

Colorado sheriffs are suing to have the background check and magazine limit laws repealed.

http://coloradoguncase.org

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon


Plan B: wait until legally barred people obtain a gun and use it to commit a violent crime. Then prosecute them and jail them forever.



Look up the number of prosecutions against people who failed Brady checks. Compare to the number touted as proving the success of the Brady check. This is plan C, the one we're on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0