Jump to content
 
Sign in to follow this  
kuhla

Gun Laws

Recommended Posts

....ridiculous because the legislators seem to be trying their best to ban guns by banning every component that makes up a gun.

 

I don't like agreeing with that statement, since the people who do point that out often are a group I would rather not be associated with, but at this point it's really getting hard to deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the viewpoint of many police forces and legislators who live in major metropolitan areas, and their general distaste for armed civilians. There's a huge difference between having a shotgun rack in your truck out in Montana and having a pistol in south central Los Angeles. I also get that gang violence is a much larger issue in major metro areas and less so in more rural locations. I'm not going to go too deep into the whole "is the constitution a living document or not?" issue but the general consensus is that there are a handful of amendments that need to be clarified by the courts over time. The first amendment has plenty of advocates, and has been ruled on several times to draw the lines between hate speech and regular protected speech, etc. The second amendment unfortunately has less advocates (The ACLU specifically does not handle any 2nd amendment cases and supports nearly all gun control), also the 2nd amendment advocates tend to pick battles they can win (read: anywhere besides CA, NY, or NJ).

That leaves people in very liberal states at the mercy of what many would consider unduly burdensome legislation. What makes it worse is that the state supreme court, and the 9th circuit of appeals are also more liberal leaning and that means any cases need to get pushed all the way to the supreme court if you want proper resolution.

 

In an ideal world we would have some proper gun violence research done by several different groups that might collect and make available information regarding gun violence. Sadly that's currently banned. Unfortunately, any research will invariably be biased by the researchers, and we'll probably just get a bunch of conflicted reports. But I'd rather have something than nothing.

 

I do feel like the legislature in CA is in a weird position where they basically rule a HUGE piece of the US, but they rule as though it's one homogeneous state, when it really isn't. The current super majorities held in both houses of California's congress is not politically healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(BEGIN RANT)

 

So I read this....

source - http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/03/508037642/study-says-gun-violence-should-be-treated-as-a-public-health-crisis

....

Every year in the U.S., more than 30,000 people die from things related to guns. That puts guns ahead of HIV, Parkinson's disease, malnutrition, hypertension, intestinal infection, peptic ulcer, anemia, viral hepatitis, biliary tract disease, atherosclerosis and fires.
...

She said medical advocates have long argued that gun violence is a public health crisis, and that the researchers say their study helps prove this point.
....

...I try to follow the links to the study and they mention CDC as the source of some of the numbers....

source - http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2595514

....
Methods | CDC mortality statistic were accessed...
....

 

...so then I try to find this information myself and I think I found it...

source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

....

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18[PDF - 4.4 MB]
....

 

...but I decide there is one more piece of information that I want that was not mentioned in the NPR article or in the study abstract...

source - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

...

Firearm suicides

Number of deaths: 21,334
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18[PDF - 4.4 MB]
...

 

...soooo.... 63% of those 30,000 firearm deaths were suicides? I feel like that puts the number in a different context. For that remaining 37% I would like to know what percentage of those involved a stolen firearm. I would expect the % number just keeps shrinking and shrinking until you are left with a fairly small percentage of deaths that involved legally owned/acquired firearms.

 

"But think about the damage just one person can do with a gun!"

 

Hmm. Yes. Good point. We must limit peoples mechanical/technological amplifying capability. It's too dangerous. /s

 

(END RANT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

source - https://apnews.com/9b92b4952e524027bbd7dd86c9545053

Quote

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law set to take effect Saturday that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The judge ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation.

California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them.
....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full PDF of the injunction: http://www.calguns.net/duncaninjunction.pdf

Quote

In another example, Attorney General's Exhibit 30 includes an article from Mother Jones Magazine with a headline, "'A Killing Machine': Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines."  Oppo. Gordon Declaration at Exh. 30.  Yet, as will be discussed below, the survey found at Attorney General's Exhibit 59 describes in detail on six incidents out of 92 where a mass shooter used a high capacity magazine. 

Of the 92 mass shootings recording in the Mayors' survey, only two occurred in California and involved the use of illegal magazines. 

The first incident involved someone illegally importing high capacity magazines into California.  Which is already a crime.

Quote

In the remaining incident [...] the killer was on parole for assault with a deadly weapon.  As such, he was already prohibited from possessing any kind of gun. 

As in [the previous example] criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds likely would not have provided additional protection from gun violence for citizen and police officers or prevented crime

The judge basically ruled that requiring individuals to surrender/destroy high capacity magazines without compensation was onerous.  He also effectively ruled that the state attorney tried to ass-pull some facts that DON'T EVEN SUPPORT HIS CAUSE. 

I also have to laugh at this

Quote

The State's preliminary theoretical and empirical evidence is inconclusive.  In fact, it would be reasonable to infer, based on the State's evidence that a right to possess magazines that hold more than 10 rounds may promote self-defense - especially in the home - and would be ordinarily useful for a citizen's militia use. 

The Attorney General has provided expert declarations and 3,1000 pages of exhibits.  [...] The amalgamation of exhibits often seems irrelevant.

Another exhibit, the Attorney General's Exhibit 50, appears to be a 100-page, 8-point type, 35-year survey of shooting incidents published by Mother Jones magazine.  [...] Mother Jones magazine has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence.

The judge practically recommends high-capacity magazines for home defense.  I know this doesn't reverse the current ban on high-capacity magazines but this ruling is fairly damning, it suggests that other more egregious gun restrictive laws will have to bring hard evidence to be upheld by the courts... not a bunch of articles from mother jones magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One perspective that I do not seeing being discussed much in the recent Las Vegas event is that there is no "modern" or "technology" aspect to what happened. With time, money and planning there is nothing about this event that makes it "unique" to 2017; that it could not have happened 10/20/30 years ago.

 

It is unlikely, and it is making an analogy regarding financial loss to loss of life, but the Equifax hack could have been done by one person because they are able to leverage all the knowledge and technology that is much more readily available today as opposed to 10 years ago against a target that has centralized and connected a large amount of personal information that was not done 20 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the bump-fire stocks he was using were readily available 10-20 years ago.  I understand your argument and generally agree that there's very little difference between the Vegas Shooting and the University of Texas clocktower shooting

I think the major issue I have with the vast majority of gun control propositions I've heard being suggested (like every time this happens) is that none of them would have put a stop to this (like every time this happens).  The perpetrator had zero criminal record and no previous mental health issues reported - he was by all accounts a 'normal' person.  I wouldn't mind a ban on bump-fire stocks, but I fully expect that legislators will wrap that particular legislation in a bunch of other bullshit to try and further certain goals. 

I also expect anti-gun states like California to pass their own additional gun legislation... just because they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the shooting was done by bump fire but more likely a crank fire (ala gatling style) due to the varying rate and increased accuracy possible with a crank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally believe most news agencies are totally incompetent when reporting about firearms but I've seen reports from multiple news sources citing the ATF, saying he had bump-fire stocks. 

Quote

Twelve bump-fire stocks were found on firearms recovered from Stephen Paddock's hotel room, said Jill Snyder, the special agent in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' San Francisco field office.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im sure you've guys have stated the position on this gun control mess on this thread. would you mind give me a outline of what you think should be done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that question Tino.  I don't think you could draft any legislation that would completely stop incidents of gun violence from happening.  I don't think outlawing bump-fire stocks is good legislation, I think it's far more emotional - feel good legislation, rather than effective legislation.  That being said, I don't have an issue with outlawing them - I consider them to be very niche and more an example of a loophole than a legitimate gun component/accessory. 

I don't think stricter gun laws is a valid solution.  You can look at the recent terror attacks that happened in Europe with vans and trucks - those were even more deadly than this particular attack and I'd argue that if the same style of attack had been carried out in Vegas or at a similar open air concert, that the death toll could be very high. 

While I could go into details on specific types of legislation I would like to see passed, I think the quick and dirty goes something like this.

  • National databases are very dangerous, and have generally proceeded government gun grabs - but certain state databases already exist (like California).  I'd prefer these databases not exist, but in today's world of big data, I'm not sure if that's realistic.  At the very least any databases with information that sensitive should follow stringent security standards, otherwise you get what happened in the American Virgin Islands or worse.
  • I'd like to see some standardized background check requirements for firearms purchases.  Bonus points if a private seller can utilize these services, think person A selling gun(s) to person B, I'd like person A to be able to run a basic firearms check on B without having to be a registered FFL. 
  • I'd like to see more broad based federal rules regarding firearms - currently it's up to states and it's a mess of what is or is not legal.  You also have states like CA and NJ actively trying to prevent people from buying guns, regardless of the 2nd amendment being part of the Bill of Rights and our constitution.  All the other amendments of the constitutions are applied universally across state lines, it's clearly a bias towards gun ownership that stops the 2nd amendment from being more universal. 
  • I personally would like some very basic safety requirements to purchase a firearm - I actually think California's Firearm Safety Certificate is a reasonable example of this.  It doesn't stop people from buying a gun, but it gives them a very basic overview of gun laws, safety, and potential liability.  You have to take a written test for your driver's license and I support a similar idea for firearm ownership. 

Other specific stuff like waiting periods, cooldown periods, limits on the number of purchases or the features of the firearm being purchased, are all granular issues that don't address major issues of gun ownership.  I don't think there's a large difference between someone owning a .22 rifle to shoot squirrels or someone owning a .45 to protect their home or someone owning something stupid like a .50 cal rifle.  I don't think magazine limits, or length and size limits keep anyone safe.  I think the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and I don't think passing onerous laws will prevent major incidents from occurring. 

Spoilered rant

RANT: I think terrorists win when citizens see their rights infringed.  I don't think flying on a plane today is dramatically safer than it was before 9/11, and I'm sick of seeing people letting their rights get trampled because something might make them feel "unsafe."  Driving on the roads is unsafe, drinking alcohol is unsafe, guns are unsafe - living is unsafe.  People are generally law abiding - adding unnecessary laws doesn't actually make them safe.  I don't want to live in a place like the UK, or other nanny states, I enjoy the freedom that I have being an American citizen./RANT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a great example of anti-gun states/districts playing fun legal games. 

Quote

District officials will not appeal a court order blocking enforcement of the city’s restrictions on the carrying of concealed guns in public

The city’s move comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to issue an order as soon as today enforcing its recent ruling that struck down the District’s requirement that people seeking licenses to carry concealed weapons must demonstrate a “good reason” — such as a credible fear of violence — for carrying a gun in public.

Many have argued D.C. should not appeal because of the risk that an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling could strike down similar concealed-carry regulations across the country in states such as California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey and Connecticut.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-will-not-appeal-gun-law-to-supreme-court/2017/10/05/e0e7c054-a9d0-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.4c7ca0c5b1b0

Currently the 9th court of appeals has ruled that "May Issue" (which allows local authorities to deny concealed carry permits for any reason) is legal (for example DC denied 77% of all applicants).  DC tried to do the same thing and lost in the DC appeals court.  Now anyone with an anti-gun agenda is pushing DC not to appeal to the supreme court because there's a strong likelihood they could lose that appeal and states like CA, NY, etc. would all have to issue concealed carry permits when requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah no easy answer, just wanted to hear your personal opinion.

just another legit circle jerk by the media/politician/ and nra  just like healthcare.

 

how do you feel with or when some one say:

the world is cruel and i want a the biggest gun i can get so i can defend myself. i dont want a pistol when people want to kill me have assault rifle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people are looking for purely defensive options for their home, I'd probably recommend a shotgun.  (Insert Joe Biden joke here)

If someone believes they live in an area with crime rates so bad that they feel the need to own large/powerful firearms to defend themselves, I'd honestly tell them to move.  If they can't or don't want to move, then I'd say a firearm isn't the only (or even the best) solution.  You might get better mileage out of a proper security system and cameras than you would out of simply owning a firearm.  You're also liable if your firearm gets stolen, so keeping it in a gun-safe or hidden compartment is highly recommended. 
Also, one of the reasons why firearms databases are dangerous is that if they are ever hacked or made public, criminals might used them to target people and steal their guns. 

Owning a firearm isn't an end all be all solution.  That's like saying just because your car has lojack you don't lock it.  I think different firearms do different jobs and I'd have a hard time recommending something large and powerful to a small person looking for home defense.  But, I believe that person should be allowed to purchase any firearm (within reasonable current limits) so if they want a .50 bmg to defend their home, I think that's acceptable (and stupid).  I also think if they use that .50 bmg to defend themselves and cause damage to innocent bystanders or their property they should be held accountable. 

One of the 4 basic firearm safety rules is: Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it

tl'dr Guns are a tool, they don't work for every scenario but they do work.  You can't use a hammer to fix everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly everyone everywhere has been offering their opinions on guns and what laws they would like to see. My opinions are pretty well documented in this thread and have not changed much in quite a while. So many of the ideas I have seen are so illogical it hurts.

One idea that someone had that I had never heard before was the idea of going "whole hog" with the 2nd amendment. The idea would be to remove most gun restrictions but to own a gun you have to be certified "militia ready" and that would have yearly requirements to renew that would involve documented range time, storage requirements, periodic background checks, medical, etc. There are plenty of flaws with that idea (as there are with most current gun laws) that I don't feel like listing out right now but I have to say I had never heard an idea like that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/11/28/breaking-news/honolulu-police-tell-legal-marijuana-users-to-turn-in-their-firearms/

Quote

In a letter to about 30 medical marijuana card holders on Oahu, the police said “you have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.”

In the letter, Ballard cites Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 134-7 (a) as the reason for the move. That section reads: “No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.”

This is technically legal.  Federal laws governing firearm ownership do make mention of drug use and anyone using illegal drugs or abusing prescription drugs is not legally allowed to purchase firearms.  In this case they're also using state laws suggesting that since marijuana is illegal federally this makes any marijuana user a "fugitive from justice."  I consider that to be a bit of a stretch but it will most likely hold up in court. 
However, this is why registries are a problem.  They basically looked up anyone who was on their state registry for firearms and anyone who had a medical marijuana card, after one quick search they get to start sending letters and confiscating property.  California supposedly has an option of using a direct doctor's prescription instead of a medical card to buy marijuana, which also provides the full legal protection of medical privacy, but I bet they could likewise go after medical card holders here too.  I'm not sure how they will handle this come January when recreation marijuana is legal, I assume they'll fuck it up like the usually do.

Please take note, I'm not defending the current situation.  I think the feds need to just accept that multiple states are legalizing marijuana and finally do it at the federal level.  But the chance of that happening currently is near zero. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a piece last night on 60 minutes about National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.  It's left leaning but it does present both sides. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

I personally feel that we should have reasonable national laws regarding firearms.  I consider the hodgepodge of state laws as downright hostile to law abiding citizens.  I do find it amusing that drivers licenses (which are a privilege) have better standing across state lines than firearm ownership (which is a constitutional right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Malaphax said:

I do find it amusing that drivers licenses (which are a privilege) have better standing across state lines than firearm ownership (which is a constitutional right).

The "it's like a car" analogy is already heavily used in debates about gun rights and I've seen a lot of back on forth whether that is appropriate or not but I generally find myself leaning more towards the "it's appropriate" camp. If we (as a country) made the-equivalent-of-a-drivers-license an initial goal post for a "reasonable" gun law discussion, I would be OK with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best argument that was made by the side in favor of concealed carry reciprocity was that a law abiding citizen becomes a criminal simply by crossing state lines.  There aren't many laws that come to mind which meet that same criteria, in fact only marijuana comes close to it.  And if I'm playing devil's advocate that's still illegal at a federal level so it's not a perfect comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malaphax said:

I think the best argument that was made by the side in favor of concealed carry reciprocity was that a law abiding citizen becomes a criminal simply by crossing state lines.

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly a bit biased, and I'm not promoting it, but a slightly different perspective can be useful. Video is a few months old.

"What can the US learn from Germany about Gun Control? | DW English"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how come some say its easy to get a gun and some says its super strict to get a gun; no registrations, no permit. ?  isnt that just straight up wrong ?

debates... half the time is just proving the other end wrong or right with a wrong facts or miss informations. soo stupid; everyone is an expert.

and me included. i feel like for my own sake i have to get my own gun to know the REAL conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, T1no said:

how come some say its easy to get a gun and some says its super strict to get a gun; no registrations, no permit. ?  isnt that just straight up wrong ?

Not wrong. Guns law very a LOT between states.

Example: Wyoming. No permit required to buy. No registrations. Anyone can concealed carry no permit. No waiting period. No background checks on private sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea the state to state variance is huge.  States like CA, HI, NY, NJ all have some form of registry and permitting process before purchasing a firearm.  In New Jersey you need a police captain to approve every firearms purchases.  In many states there are also waiting periods of up to 10 days before you can actually take the firearm you've purchased home with you. 

I understand there are large differences between California and Wyoming, but I find it infuriating that gun laws are so drastically different between two states in the same country.  One of the downsides of living in a large and diverse country...

Speaking briefly to Kuhla's German gun laws video
There are certainly points that I understand and could even accept.  There are others that get murky very quickly.  The psychiatric exam for example gets scary on multiple levels because the doctor is not a fixed variable and because we already have laws in the US which discourage the use of mental health services. 
I also think the "no self defense usage" wouldn't fly at all in the US.  In fact I consider that to be a non-starter, because even people who might support strict gun laws acknowledge that guns are a very effective form of self defense. 

 

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.

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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...