N'Al on 9/10/2017 at 15:17
Quote Posted by demagogue
Both sides want to make the nightmare of nightmares come true for the other side.
Sensible politics, I see.
Chimpy Chompy on 9/10/2017 at 15:17
Quote Posted by catbarf
Which is why we see that New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, and Idaho, four states with some of the laxest gun control legislation and highest rates of firearm ownership, also have some of the lowest crime and in particular homicide rates in the country.
In spite of its extremely high firearm ownership rate, New Hampshire is (
https://mises.org/blog/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada) safer than Canada. .
what the hell is going on in Nunavut!? It has the highest murder rate anywhere in the US or Canada.
heywood on 9/10/2017 at 15:24
Quote Posted by Medlar
Going back to gun control, how could it be possible for the USA to change to a European style gun law country? Even if the 2nd amendment was removed from law I wonder what percentage of US residents would voluntarily turn in their weapons...
Gun laws vary across Europe. If you mean UK style gun laws, surely you know that's never going to happen here. Gun ownership is too much a part of the culture.
I think we should work on making gun laws more uniform across the states. It seems ridiculous to me that in a country where we all enjoy freedom of movement that gun regulation isn't more uniform like motor vehicles. But even that seems pretty hard in the current adversarial political climate. I think gun control advocates can be their own worst enemies. The recent history is that pushing to outlaw guns drives gun sales. In particular, the threat of a ban on the AR-15 and similar military styled rifles led to a huge demand for them. If you're a gun control advocate, the worst thing you can do is give gun owners the impression that your ultimate goal is to outlaw and confiscate guns. That's what triggers gun hoarding and "from my cold, dead hands" reactions.
I see a pattern that keeps repeating itself here. The gun control debate dies down, then a big mass shooting happens, followed by "we've got to do something" knee-jerk gun control advocacy, which generates a backlash and higher gun sales, some head-scratching and discussion about motives and mental health, and then it dies down again. Meanwhile, about 30k Americans die from gun shots every year not related to mass shootings, and unless some celebrity has died those deaths never make it out of the local news. So I feel like we're stuck in a circular debate about the wrong problem.
jkcerda on 9/10/2017 at 16:41
@heywood, what state gets to determine what the laws should be? CA /NY/IL/MD are fucking retarded when it comes to laws.
nickie on 9/10/2017 at 18:39
I watched part of a programme today, featuring partial interviews with Scalise and Feinstein. I was mildly swayed with Scalise's arguments in favour of guns. I was also mildly swayed by Feinstein's arguments re: cars don't kill, people do; guns don't kill, people do. There are two things that occurred to me from those interviews.
What is the problem with licensing? In the UK you have to apply for a license every 5 years, and show why you need/want the gun/s. You have to keep them locked in a cabinet etc. etc. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen and living in a gun culture society, regardless of the number of guns you own, why is licensing an infringement of your rights. Which I think is what is argued. I could be wrong but I believe the NRA fights against licensing on that basis. Or something similar.
Imagining a scenario where there is an 'incident'. If there is a record of a legal, licensed gun owner, on the whole, would you not think that the 'incident' could be something that could be controlled or contained because you're dealing with a 'law-abiding citizen' rather than ending in a shoot out. If there was no license recorded, it would be more appropriate to approach the incident in a more aggressive or maybe careful manner, perhaps. That's obviously rather garbled but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say.
The other thing I wonder is who, here, has been threatened/allegedly threatened by a gun in a non-military/war situation.
jkcerda on 9/10/2017 at 18:58
we are different culturally from the U.K and most other nations, here the more you try and regulate things the more the black market explodes
heywood on 9/10/2017 at 20:59
Quote Posted by jkcerda
@heywood, what state gets to determine what the laws should be? CA /NY/IL/MD are fucking retarded when it comes to laws.
First, there would have to be progress on setting minimum standards that would be applied through federal regulation. Second there would have to be an effort, mostly through the courts, to roll back some of the more egregious state and local regulations. I'll give you a few examples based on my own personal opinions. Some states require a background check of the buyer when a firearm is sold by a private party, and some do not. I think this should be a federal requirement. Another thing that ought to be a federal requirement is some form of child access prevention. I'd also like to see the myriad of castle laws standardized under federal law to something that allows for reasonable home defense but doesn't encourage vigilantism. In the courts, I think states should be brought into compliance with the Firearm Owners Protection Act, so you don't have states like NY arresting people who are transporting their guns through the state e.g. when moving or going on a trip. I also think it would be worthwhile, albeit very difficult, to standardize which firearms and magazines are actually legal for sale.
One thing that I would be inclined to leave up to state and local jurisdictions is carry laws. For example, if a city is hosting a political rally, an occupy protest, a concert in the park, etc. and they don't want any guns in and around the event, I think that's reasonable. Or if a group of people are abusing open carry rights for the purpose of intimidation, a city or state that is experiencing that problem ought to be able to ban open carry.
Quote Posted by nickie
I watched part of a programme today, featuring partial interviews with Scalise and Feinstein. I was mildly swayed with Scalise's arguments in favour of guns. I was also mildly swayed by Feinstein's arguments re: cars don't kill, people do; guns don't kill, people do. There are two things that occurred to me from those interviews.
What is the problem with licensing? In the UK you have to apply for a license every 5 years, and show why you need/want the gun/s. You have to keep them locked in a cabinet etc. etc. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen and living in a gun culture society, regardless of the number of guns you own, why is licensing an infringement of your rights. Which I think is what is argued. I could be wrong but I believe the NRA fights against licensing on that basis. Or something similar.
I got a pistol permit in New York State when I turned 18 because I wanted to hunt deer with a .357 rather than the shotgun I was using. It was a somewhat arduous process and took nearly a year. I also lived in Massachusetts for a while, which requires licensing even for long guns. It was a faster process but the requirements are somewhat up to the whim of the local sheriff. I personally don't have an issue with licensing IF the process is reasonable, the requirements/qualifications are relatively uniform from state to state, and the states practice reciprocity. Basically, I would like it to work more like motor vehicle licensing. If I obtain a driver's license in one state, when I move to another state I don't have to go through the whole process of obtaining a driver's license from scratch all over again.
Quote:
Imagining a scenario where there is an 'incident'. If there is a record of a legal, licensed gun owner, on the whole, would you not think that the 'incident' could be something that could be controlled or contained because you're dealing with a 'law-abiding citizen' rather than ending in a shoot out. If there was no license recorded, it would be more appropriate to approach the incident in a more aggressive or maybe careful manner, perhaps. That's obviously rather garbled but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say.
I wouldn't want the police using a gun licensing database for that purpose. Nothing drives cops to panic like thinking the person they are about to confront/stop/arrest is carrying a gun. If you're carrying, and you get pulled over for a traffic violation, telling the cop that you're carrying can turn a routine stop into a nail-biting encounter with a nervous cop pointing a gun at your face, waiting for backup, having to leave the vehicle and get searched. I've heard a couple first hand accounts from people I work with. Worse yet, it occasionally results in the cop shooting first and asking questions later. (
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-video-shots-officer-philando-castile-20170620-story.html) We just had a high profile case of that.
Quote:
The other thing I wonder is who, here, has been threatened/allegedly threatened by a gun in a non-military/war situation.
I haven't experienced this personally, but this is what armed robbery is all about.
catbarf on 10/10/2017 at 13:51
Quote Posted by nickie
What is the problem with licensing? In the UK you have to apply for a license every 5 years, and show why you need/want the gun/s. You have to keep them locked in a cabinet etc. etc. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen and living in a gun culture society, regardless of the number of guns you own, why is licensing an infringement of your rights. Which I think is what is argued. I could be wrong but I believe the NRA fights against licensing on that basis. Or something similar.
There are a couple of things going on there.
First, American gun owners have had a bad history with any kind of registration. In New York, for example, when the SAFE Act was passed in 2013 it required gun owners to register assault weapons. A few months later, New York City passed new laws banning them entirely, and then the registry was used to track down owners and force them to either sell, remove, or face confiscation. Canada had a firearm registry from 1993 to 2012, which was essentially abandoned after having
never contributed to the solving of a crime. Mind you, this is about registries, not licensing.
For strictly licensing, a lot of gun owners are not comfortable with a government agency being able to decide whether their want/need is 'legitimate'. We already see this happen in states with may-issue permits. In New York, for example, it is impossible to legally buy a handgun if your local sheriff decides no justification you can offer is good enough to meet his standard. In New York City specifically, nobody gets a handgun permit unless they're personally connected to the police in some manner. Maybe if the gun debate weren't so polarized it might be an acceptable measure, but as it stands it's not unreasonable that under a Democratic administration the central licensing agency might decide that self-defense isn't a 'legitimate need' and so categorically deny licenses.
Personally, I'd approve of safe storage laws. While accidents resulting from unsecured firearms and crimes committed with stolen firearms are both relatively rare, they're easily preventable through secure storage and represent little undue burden on the owner.
jkcerda on 10/10/2017 at 14:45
Quote Posted by heywood
First, there would have to be progress on setting minimum standards that would be applied through federal regulation.
Second there would have to be an effort, mostly through the courts, to roll back some of the more egregious state and local regulations. I'll give you a few examples based on my own personal opinions. Some states require a background check of the buyer when a firearm is sold by a private party, and some do not. I think this should be a federal requirement. Another thing that ought to be a federal requirement is some form of child access prevention. I'd also like to see the myriad of castle laws standardized under federal law to something that allows for reasonable home defense but doesn't encourage vigilantism. In the courts, I think states should be brought into compliance with the Firearm Owners Protection Act, so you don't have states like NY arresting people who are transporting their guns through the state e.g. when moving or going on a trip.
3. I also think it would be worthwhile, albeit very difficult, to standardize which firearms and magazines are actually legal for sale.
4.One thing that I would be inclined to leave up to state and local jurisdictions is carry laws. For example, if a city is hosting a political rally, an occupy protest, a concert in the park, etc. and they don't want any guns in and around the event, I think that's reasonable. Or if a group of people are abusing open carry rights for the purpose of intimidation, a city or state that is experiencing that problem ought to be able to ban open carry.
5.I got a pistol permit in New York State when I turned 18 because I wanted to hunt deer with a .357 rather than the shotgun I was using. It was a somewhat arduous process and took nearly a year. I also lived in Massachusetts for a while, which requires licensing even for long guns. It was a faster process but the requirements are somewhat up to the whim of the local sheriff. I personally don't have an issue with licensing IF the process is reasonable, the requirements/qualifications are relatively uniform from state to state, and the states practice reciprocity. Basically, I would like it to work more like motor vehicle licensing. If I obtain a driver's license in one state, when I move to another state I don't have to go through the whole process of obtaining a driver's license from scratch all over again.
I wouldn't want the police using a gun licensing database for that purpose. Nothing drives cops to panic like thinking the person they are about to confront/stop/arrest is carrying a gun. If you're carrying, and you get pulled over for a traffic violation, telling the cop that you're carrying can turn a routine stop into a nail-biting encounter with a nervous cop pointing a gun at your face, waiting for backup, having to leave the vehicle and get searched. I've heard a couple first hand accounts from people I work with. Worse yet, it occasionally results in the cop shooting first and asking questions later. (
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-video-shots-officer-philando-castile-20170620-story.html) We just had a high profile case of that.
I haven't experienced this personally, but this is what armed robbery is all about.
1. you have to get ALL states to agree, CA/NY/MD/IL is full of retards that will NEVER go along unless is the feds PLUS whatever feel good do nothing restrictions they want.
2. again, see CA/NY/IL/MD and CONGRATS, YOU know what compromise means, THEY get something and WE get something.
3. that is easy, if the COPS can have it for PERSONAL use, then so should civilians, PLEASE notice I said PERSONAL use.
4 fine by me.
5. been stopped a couple of times already while carrying and YES I told the cop I was legally armed, handed over my DL and my CCW at the same time, that way there was nothing else for me to reach for except my registration, out of 3 stops I got ONE ticket and guessing it's because he had back up (other guys did not) . at no time did they pull their guns, they WERE surprised I was carrying, guess not that many people carry OR disclose it if they don't have too.
this is what I look like
Inline Image:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd250/jkcerda/CerdaMugShot.jpgnot exactly the type of guy you want to see hanging around the bushes, if you want to see more well I have a web cam & charge $3.99 a minute for my sessions, I am able to do sheep sound and Renz can get you a coupon for my Tuesday sessions but he and I might be busy that day......
heywood on 10/10/2017 at 15:32
Quote Posted by catbarf
There are a couple of things going on there.
First, American gun owners have had a bad history with any kind of registration. In New York, for example, when the SAFE Act was passed in 2013 it required gun owners to register assault weapons. A few months later, New York City passed new laws banning them entirely, and then the registry was used to track down owners and force them to either sell, remove, or face confiscation. Canada had a firearm registry from 1993 to 2012, which was essentially abandoned after having
never contributed to the solving of a crime. Mind you, this is about registries, not licensing.
For strictly licensing, a lot of gun owners are not comfortable with a government agency being able to decide whether their want/need is 'legitimate'. We already see this happen in states with may-issue permits. In New York, for example, it is impossible to legally buy a handgun if your local sheriff decides no justification you can offer is good enough to meet his standard. In New York City specifically, nobody gets a handgun permit unless they're personally connected to the police in some manner. Maybe if the gun debate weren't so polarized it might be an acceptable measure, but as it stands it's not unreasonable that under a Democratic administration the central licensing agency might decide that self-defense isn't a 'legitimate need' and so categorically deny licenses.
Personally, I'd approve of safe storage laws. While accidents resulting from unsecured firearms and crimes committed with stolen firearms are both relatively rare, they're easily preventable through secure storage and represent little undue burden on the owner.
I think we need to continue may-issue licensing for certain classes of regulated weapons as it is today e.g. automatics. I'm also OK with may-issue licensing for concealed or open carry permits which could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction for the reasons I mentioned above.
I would be happy to accept a general license requirement if it's shall-issue, honored by other states, and transferable from one state to another. I think there is value in licensing just to make sure that everyone who buys a gun, buys ammunition, shoots, hunts, etc. has gone through basic gun education, safety training, and can demonstrate basic safe shooting practice on a range. Included in that would be some discretion for instructors to flunk the occasional shithead that you really wouldn't feel comfortable being any where near on a range.
Of course, all that would do is make people like me feel a little safer when I'm on the range or out hunting, and maybe prevent some accidental gun deaths. It wouldn't do much of anything to prevent gun murders and suicides.
Safe storage is a hard topic because a lot of people own a gun for home defense, and if it's secured then it isn't readily accessible if you need it for that purpose. Then again, a lot of gun deaths involving kids come from kids taking their parents' firearms. It seems to me that children/minors accessing guns is a more widespread and deadly problem than home break-ins, so I would err on the side of safe storage. Ultimately, the evolution of smart guns should address this.
