The OK case

[Dill]

(04-04-2017, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so are you saying the profiling works?  Your initial statement would seem to indicate this.

The uninitiated might think so. I was "reading cues."

My initial "statement" was a question.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2017, 08:54 PM)Dill Wrote: The uninitiated might think so. I was "reading cues."

Based on what training and experience?

Quote:My initial "statement" was a question.

Sure it was, no implications made at all.

[GMDino]

[hollodero]

(04-04-2017, 08:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Depends on the neighbors.

Now that is certainly true. Mine, for example, are very actively gay and make that fact heard. It's annoyingly loud. Now of course that doesn't mean I would actively attack them through the wall with a rocket launcher. But if I were to fight off a dangerous intruder standing on said wall and I happen to have my rocket launcher at hand, I might be tempted.

[hollodero]

OK I'd like to quickly add something to the debate, not just goofing around. Your profound expertise in all kinds of killing machines have made my head swirl; it's bizarre, but that's just European sensitivity. You do stuff your way, so whatever.

Just a quick question for an outsider like me. You have driver licenses, here getting one of these takes I dont know maybe 30 hours of practice, two full days of lecture and then exams. And I think that's only fair, since cars are potentially dangerous and people could get harmed or killed if handled unprofessionally. - Why doesn't this profound logic apply to guns, though? You want a gun, you prove you can handle a gun, you either served or take a course and get your licence. You want more power, machine guns or whatever to outarm whoever, you go through some hours of proper paramilitaric training. Oh, and a short psychological evaluation might not be the worst idea, too. Then you get a licence, then you can buy a gun and protect your family from armed intruders instead of potentially harm them with your own weaponry.

Now, whoever would not be behind that, please explain why not. I want to capture the American spirit.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-04-2017, 10:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK I'd like to quickly add something to the debate, not just goofing around. Your profound expertise in all kinds of killing machines have made my head swirl; it's bizarre, but that's just European sensitivity. You do stuff your way, so whatever.

Just a quick question for an outsider like me. You have driver licenses, here getting one of these takes I dont know maybe 30 hours of practice, two full days of lecture and then exams. And I think that's only fair, since cars are potentially dangerous and people could get harmed or killed if handled unprofessionally. - Why doesn't this profound logic apply to guns, though? You want a gun, you prove you can handle a gun, you either served or take a course and get your licence. You want more power, machine guns or whatever to outarm whoever, you go through some hours of proper paramilitaric training. Oh, and a short psychological evaluation might not be the worst idea, too. Then you get a licence, then you can buy a gun and protect your family from armed intruders instead of potentially harm them with your own weaponry.

Now, whoever would not be behind that, please explain why not. I want to capture the American spirit.

Just like if you go to Scandinavia, I am sure they have profound expertise in all kinds of fire axes or something. Or the Swiss and skis, or ironically, probably also firearms. 


Here you take a multiple choice test to get a temp driving license, and then you have to take a practical exam to get a proper license (in Ohio it's basically driving through a small neighborhood or something while following the laws properly, and then going through some cones forward and backward). Lectures and all that isn't mandatory.

I have no problem with people being properly taught how to handle a firearm (and you have to go through a skill test and local law lecture to get a concealed carry permit except in some states you can provide a DD 214, which is a proof of military service) but the problem comes with when you start having to go through courses, permitting, or psychological evaluations just for ownership.

1. Ownership of a firearm is a Constitutional right, so just having a person be able to say "you're not allowed to have this right" without you having potentially done anything wrong is pretty much not going to fly. Though a firearm dealer always has the right to deny a sale if they don't want to sell to you, for whatever reason.
2. Anytime you start talking permitting and the like for basic ownership, you are creeping into having a registry of gun owners, which is something that nobody want to allow to happen. They pretty much have never turned out well and as had been proven for awhile now, even if everyone was okay with the Government having a list of everyone who owns a gun, their data is hardly impossible to hack. There's been police stations hacked and all their officers personal information released on the internet fairly recently.

Honestly, much like morals, speech, toilet training, and the like.. gun ownership/safety/handling is often the responsibility of being taught from parent to child. I was shooting guns when I was 4 or 6. Ask me how many times I have ever pointed a gun, regardless of knowing it was unloaded, at another. Or how many negligent discharges I have had.

Any of your suggestions really won't solve the vast majority of gun deaths in the US. Criminals still won't follow laws. Chicago has been making it harder and harder to own a gun legally, and it's not done shit for their gun deaths.


(Also, driving licenses are mostly about collecting money. Taxes, fees, etc. Hence why it's $25.75 to "renew" your license)

[GMDino]

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just like if you go to Scandinavia, I am sure they have profound expertise in all kinds of fire axes or something. Or the Swiss and skis, or ironically, probably also firearms. 


Here you take a multiple choice test to get a temp driving license, and then you have to take a practical exam to get a proper license (in Ohio it's basically driving through a small neighborhood or something while following the laws properly, and then going through some cones forward and backward). Lectures and all that isn't mandatory.

I have no problem with people being properly taught how to handle a firearm (and you have to go through a skill test and local law lecture to get a concealed carry permit except in some states you can provide a DD 214, which is a proof of military service) but the problem comes with when you start having to go through courses, permitting, or psychological evaluations just for ownership.

1. Ownership of a firearm is a Constitutional right, so just having a person be able to say "you're not allowed to have this right" without you having potentially done anything wrong is pretty much not going to fly. Though a firearm dealer always has the right to deny a sale if they don't want to sell to you, for whatever reason.
2. Anytime you start talking permitting and the like for basic ownership, you are creeping into having a registry of gun owners, which is something that nobody want to allow to happen. They pretty much have never turned out well and as had been proven for awhile now, even if everyone was okay with the Government having a list of everyone who owns a gun, their data is hardly impossible to hack. There's been police stations hacked and all their officers personal information released on the internet fairly recently.

Honestly, much like morals, speech, toilet training, and the like.. gun ownership/safety/handling is often the responsibility of being taught from parent to child. I was shooting guns when I was 4 or 6. Ask me how many times I have ever pointed a gun, regardless of knowing it was unloaded, at another. Or how many negligent discharges I have had.

Any of your suggestions really won't solve the vast majority of gun deaths in the US. Criminals still won't follow laws. Chicago has been making it harder and harder to own a gun legally, and it's not done shit for their gun deaths.


(Also, driving licenses are mostly about collecting money. Taxes, fees, etc. Hence why it's $25.75 to "renew" your license)

I never understood the fight against a registry.  Many countries have them.  I'm not sure they "pretty much have never turned out well" for the ones that still do to this day.

Edit: Before I get accused. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. You have a right to own a gun. I just don't understand what the difference is someone, somewhere knows you own it since it's legal anyway.

[Rotobeast]

(04-04-2017, 02:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: Americans talking guns. Never do I feel more estranged to you.

I don't wat to interrupt though - just one quick question: How big of a problem are heavily armed intruders?

Not often.
Most intruders are junkies looking for stuff to sell, so they might get their next fix.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2017, 10:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK I'd like to quickly add something to the debate, not just goofing around. Your profound expertise in all kinds of killing machines have made my head swirl; it's bizarre, but that's just European sensitivity. You do stuff your way, so whatever.

Just a quick question for an outsider like me. You have driver licenses, here getting one of these takes I dont know maybe 30 hours of practice, two full days of lecture and then exams. And I think that's only fair, since cars are potentially dangerous and people could get harmed or killed if handled unprofessionally. - Why doesn't this profound logic apply to guns, though? You want a gun, you prove you can handle a gun, you either served or take a course and get your licence. You want more power, machine guns or whatever to outarm whoever, you go through some hours of proper paramilitaric training. Oh, and a short psychological evaluation might not be the worst idea, too. Then you get a licence, then you can buy a gun and protect your family from armed intruders instead of potentially harm them with your own weaponry.

Now, whoever would not be behind that, please explain why not. I want to capture the American spirit.

Like most national characteristics, the answer is complicated.  The Framers were a mix of Federalists and anti-Federalists, so our government is an odd mix of deference to a central authority and a profound mistrust of the same.  National loyalty is stressed while at the same time the states are given, individually, a large amount of power and autonomy.  Add the fact that, for a large amount of the country's history it was a frontier nation.  I have several firearms that have been passed down from four generations, from my great grandfather in WW1.  My maternal uncle has a pistol that was used by a direct ancestor in the civil war.  Firearm ownership is ingrained in many American families.

(04-04-2017, 11:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I never understood the fight against a registry.  Many countries have them.  I'm not sure they "pretty much have never turned out well" for the ones that still do to this day.

Edit: Before I get accused.  I fully support the 2nd Amendment.  You have a right to own a gun.  I just don't understand what the difference is someone, somewhere knows you own it since it's legal anyway.

The resistance to a registry is due to the perception that registration is the last step before confiscation.  Despite the bemused skepticism of people like xxlt the progressive states have shown that such concerns are rooted in some reality.  Also, anti 2A types have published such lists on the internet in the past.  Might as well make a map of which houses criminals should try and burgle.  

(04-04-2017, 11:45 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not often.
Most intruders are junkies looking for stuff to sell, so they might get their next fix.

How often does your house burn down?  Doesn't stop people from having fire insurance.  In CA many people have earthquake insurance as homeowners insurance doesn't normally cover it.  As Roto will agree with me, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[Rotobeast]

(04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How often does your house burn down?  Doesn't stop people from having fire insurance.  In CA many people have earthquake insurance as homeowners insurance doesn't normally cover it.  As Roto will agree with me, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Absolutely !

For what it's worth, Hollo....
I hope I NEVER, EVER have to point a firearm at another human being.

[hollodero]

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. Ownership of a firearm is a Constitutional right, so just having a person be able to say "you're not allowed to have this right" without you having potentially done anything wrong is pretty much not going to fly. Though a firearm dealer always has the right to deny a sale if they don't want to sell to you, for whatever reason.

Well, obviously that latter point shoots the Constitution argument in the foot, just logically speaking. If a dealer denies anyone a gun, he would violate the constitution. Every time.
Yet he obviously still can.

Secondly, there have to be certain conditions where you would agree that although this person is a citizen, he should not own a gun. Children would be a good example, or blind people, mentally ******** people, and of course people with a history of violence. Still citizens, though, still protected by the constitution, yet if you will stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

Thirdly, it says "arms" in the amendment, but some arms are forbidden anyway. You could't own just any kind of weapon, say a dirty bomb, a tank, a grenade launcher, heavy artillery. All these are "arms", too, right? Which means there obviously is a line, the question is just where to draw it.

All of which combined shows to me that this amendmend is somehow open to interpretation and not that fundamental as it is portrayed. There is obviously nuance to that. And since there's wiggle room, I would argue that a licence does not infringe one's right to bear arms. You can, anytime. Just get the licence. And if you can't get it, you're probably not given a gun right now, either.

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2. Anytime you start talking permitting and the like for basic ownership, you are creeping into having a registry of gun owners, which is something that nobody want to allow to happen. They pretty much have never turned out well and as had been proven for awhile now, even if everyone was okay with the Government having a list of everyone who owns a gun, their data is hardly impossible to hack. There's been police stations hacked and all their officers personal information released on the internet fairly recently.

That goes with anything from tax returns to divorces and then some. All your returns are registered, doesn't mean they get hacked. Sure, it can happen. But then I fail to see why this is a problem with said gun registry (I see taxes or bank accounts hacked as a far bigger problem, and all those things can actually happen). So someone hacked gun ownership data from a police station, that doesn't endanger your gun or you particularly, does it?

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, much like morals, speech, toilet training, and the like.. gun ownership/safety/handling is often the responsibility of being taught from parent to child.

Same could be said about driving a car. Still, licence.

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I was shooting guns when I was 4 or 6. Ask me how many times I have ever pointed a gun, regardless of knowing it was unloaded, at another. Or how many negligent discharges I have had.

Well, I am strictly against infants holding guns in their hands, by which I do not want to offend the younger you. That is just dangerous. In general, American parents have the reputation of being very protective, and then you hand a gun to a four-year-old? That is one of the bizarre things to me.
And, out of curiosity I will ask, how often have you? I guess never, but I still ask.

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Any of your suggestions really won't solve the vast majority of gun deaths in the US. Criminals still won't follow laws. Chicago has been making it harder and harder to own a gun legally, and it's not done shit for their gun deaths.

I think it might help a little, but in general I guess you're right. Your violence problem doesn't just root in easy gun ownership. There's a bunch of roots. Why America has so much crime and murder is one of the stranger things for foreign eyes, and I don't really know either. But I don't solely blame gun laws.

On the other hand, there's the Australia gun restriction example. By that I do not propose a gun ban, but it makes me think. From Wikipedia "Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then." - Half the death count by firearms, no more massacres, that's something to consider.

(04-04-2017, 11:22 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: (Also, driving licenses are mostly about collecting money. Taxes, fees, etc. Hence why it's $25.75 to "renew" your license)

Now that is true here, too. Citizens get taken advantage of in the process. Still, I think a driver's licence is a reasonable thing to have. One sure can see that differently, are you against drivers licences?

[hollodero]

(04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Like most national characteristics, the answer is complicated.  The Framers were a mix of Federalists and anti-Federalists, so our government is an odd mix of deference to a central authority and a profound mistrust of the same.  National loyalty is stressed while at the same time the states are given, individually, a large amount of power and autonomy.  Add the fact that, for a large amount of the country's history it was a frontier nation.  I have several firearms that have been passed down from four generations, from my great grandfather in WW1.  My maternal uncle has a pistol that was used by a direct ancestor in the civil war.  Firearm ownership is ingrained in many American families.

I get that. I might not understand it, but I do get it.

(04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The resistance to a registry is due to the perception that registration is the last step before confiscation.  Despite the bemused skepticism of people like xxlt the progressive states have shown that such concerns are rooted in some reality.

That I do not get. Confiscation would be a clear breach of your Constitution, that's not likely at all. If you think confiscation is on the table, I would like to know where this perception comes from. You said some reality, so what reality?

(04-05-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How often does your house burn down?  Doesn't stop people from having fire insurance.  In CA many people have earthquake insurance as homeowners insurance doesn't normally cover it.  As Roto will agree with me, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

That I do get again. I don't advocate against said insurance, I just would like everyone owning a deadly weapon to know how to handle it, much like with the deadly weapon "car". I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Rotobeast]

(04-05-2017, 12:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: So someone hacked gun ownership data from a police station, that doesn't endanger your gun or you particularly, does it?

Yes it does, actually.
Some firearms are rather expensive and if you own an expensive firearm, you're likely to own more than one gun.
That makes you a target of theft.
Most Americans are away from their home for 9-12 hours/day.
Thieves map the pattern and rob the house in the mid AM, before lunch.

[hollodero]

(04-05-2017, 12:38 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yes it does, actually.
Some firearms are rather expensive and if you own an expensive firearm, you're likely to own more than one gun.
That makes you a target of theft.
Most Americans are away from their home for 9-12 hours/day.
Thieves map the pattern and rob the house in the mid AM, before lunch.

Hmmmm.
OK, that's technically not impossible. A thief hacks into a police station, steals the gun ownership registry and then robs the guns while people are away.

Honestly, I think that is a stupid plan, though. If you have the resources to hack into police, wouldn't that resources be way better spent to hack for more valuable data? I wouldn't go for expensive guns, I would go for people with high income. Hack that information and then rob their houses.
Second, if I were a thief I would avoid the gun owners rather than targeting them, but maybe I'm just too cautious.

What it boils down to for me: I see it's a possibility, but I'd argue for giving that aspect the weight it deserves. Which isn't that much.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2017, 12:37 AM)hollodero Wrote: That I do not get. Confiscation would be a clear breach of your Constitution, that's not likely at all. If you think confiscation is on the table, I would like to know where this perception comes from. You said some reality, so what reality?

Much like anti-abortionists, the goal isn't to accomplish abolishment in a single stroke, it's more of a death by a thousand cuts.  One need look no further than the most recent presidential election, in which Hillary stated openly that the Australian model of confiscation was something, "worth looking at".  First you make one class of firearms illegal, after all, who needs military style "assault weapons".  After you get that passed you focus on the next target, any semi-automatic magazine fed long gun.  California is a perfect example of this.  Who needs magazines that hold more than ten rounds, let's ban them, but let those already in possession stay with their owners, after making a promise never to confiscate these, "grandfathered" magazines.  Fast forward to 2016 and those grandfathered magazines are banned and must be confiscated or the owner is now a felon.  California has a handgun registry that is intentionally designed to shrink with every passing year, the goal isn't to promote safety as stated, it is to eliminate private firearm ownership.

Yes, you are right that under DC v. Heller the right of private citizens to own a firearm for self defense is upheld.  But the SCOTUS is not set in stone, hence the extreme importance attached to the ability to nominate SC justices.  I totally get why people in countries that don't have firearms ownership don't get the American desire to own a gun.  Having grown up around them they aren't odd or scary, but I understand how some would perceive them as such.

[Rotobeast]

(04-05-2017, 12:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hmmmm.
OK, that's technically not impossible. A thief hacks into a police station, steals the gun ownership registry and then robs the guns while people are away.

Honestly, I think that is a stupid plan, though. If you have the resources to hack into police, wouldn't that resources be way better spent to hack for more valuable data? I wouldn't go for expensive guns, I would go for people with high income. Hack that information and then rob their houses.
Second, if I were a thief I would avoid the gun owners rather than targeting them, but maybe I'm just too cautious.

What it boils down to for me: I see it's a possibility, but I'd argue for giving that aspect the weight it deserves. Which isn't that much.

I don't disagree with targeting the richer targets.
The gun ownership, cross-referenced with address would yield high value targets, but they'd also have far better security.
Honestly, I doubt someone would electronically hack the local registry.
It would be far more likely that a "hard copy" ended up outside the station.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2017, 12:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hmmmm.
OK, that's technically not impossible. A thief hacks into a police station, steals the gun ownership registry and then robs the guns while people are away.

That's not necessary, just wait for a left leaning source to publish the data in the name of "public safety".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-05-2017, 12:26 AM)hollodero Wrote: 1. Well, obviously that latter point shoots the Constitution argument in the foot, just logically speaking. If a dealer denies anyone a gun, he would violate the constitution. Every time.
Yet he obviously still can.

Secondly, there have to be certain conditions where you would agree that although this person is a citizen, he should not own a gun. Children would be a good example, or blind people, 2. mentally ******** people, and of course people with a history of violence. Still citizens, though, still protected by the constitution, yet if you will stripped of their 2nd amendment rights.

Thirdly, it says "arms" in the amendment, but some arms are forbidden anyway. You could't own just any kind of weapon, say a dirty bomb, a tank, a grenade launcher, heavy artillery. All these are "arms", too, right? Which means there obviously is a line, the question is just where to draw it.

All of which combined shows to me that this amendmend is somehow open to interpretation and not that fundamental as it is portrayed. There is obviously nuance to that. And since there's wiggle room, 3. I would argue that a licence does not infringe one's right to bear arms. You can, anytime. Just get the licence. And if you can't get it, you're probably not given a gun right now, either.



That goes with anything from tax returns to divorces and then some. All your returns are registered, doesn't mean they get hacked. Sure, it can happen. But then I fail to see why this is a problem with said gun registry (I see taxes or bank accounts hacked as a far bigger problem, and all those things can actually happen). 4. So someone hacked gun ownership data from a police station, that doesn't endanger your gun or you particularly, does it?



5. Same could be said about driving a car. Still, licence.



Well, I am strictly against infants holding guns in their hands, by which I do not want to offend the younger you. 6. That is just dangerous. In general, American parents have the reputation of being very protective, and then you hand a gun to a four-year-old? That is one of the bizarre things to me.
And, out of curiosity I will ask, how often have you? I guess never, but I still ask.



I think it might help a little, but in general I guess you're right. Your violence problem doesn't just root in easy gun ownership. There's a bunch of roots. Why America has so much crime and murder is one of the stranger things for foreign eyes, and I don't really know either. But I don't solely blame gun laws.

On the other hand, 7. there's the Australia gun restriction example. By that I do not propose a gun ban, but it makes me think. From Wikipedia "Since the 1996 legislation the risk of dying by gunshots was reduced by 50% in the following years and stayed on that lower level since then." - Half the death count by firearms, no more massacres, that's something to consider.



Now that is true here, too. Citizens get taken advantage of in the process. Still, I think a driver's licence is a reasonable thing to have. One sure can see that differently, 8. are you against drivers licences?

1. You have a right to own a firearm. It doesn't mean that a firearm seller has an obligation to sell to you. Go find another person who will. You thinking that's a constitutional violation is the same people who think their first amendment rights of free speech are being violated when people criticize what they say. You have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean people can't make fun of you for it, or your employer can't fire you for it.

Honestly, when you read articles about "super gun owners" or whatever, it's very common to have guns handed down from grandparents and great grandparents. Like SSF mentioned, my family also had a Civil War cap-and-ball revolver and battle damaged regimental battle flag (currently on loan to a museum).  The right to buy it doesn't compel a salesperson to be required to sell to you. (Unless you're gay and are ordering a wedding cake. )

As for you starting to take it over-the-top with grenade launchers, tanks, and the like.. you can legally own all of that in the US. Just have to get the right permits, which generally means paying large amounts of money. Money shouldn't be the thing keeping you from Constitutional rights.

- - - - - - -

2. Who determines how mentally ******** you need to be in order to no longer be allowed your Constitutional right? Now you're giving a psychiatrist (are they a government psychiatrist, a police psychiatrist, a private practice one?) the ability to strip people of rights. This is already in action, though. If they're able to function in society, I don't mind them owning.

Convicted felons are stripped of their right to bare arms, though they can apply to have them reinstated by a judge, since felon doesn't automatically mean violent. How violent is a history of violence? A highschool fight? A bar fight in college? That seems silly.

- - - - - - -

3. I'm not sure why you think common sense (not giving firearms to blind people) means the door is open to force everyone to jump through hoops, pay fees, and register to use their rights. You can bet your ass it'd cost money to go through the course, training, and licensing you described. So you're basically not only wanting any poor people to be able to use their rights. Inherited firearms are a pretty big thing, so you don't even need to have ever spent money to buy a gun in order to own a gun.


- - - - - - -

4. Until someone posts that shit online and your house gets targeted for robbery while you're not there. It'd be like posting a "who owns real diamond jewelry" registry online and being shocked when their houses get targeted. Or protested, because there's already assholes with nothing better to do than sit outside a planned parenthood with signs all day long, or wear vagina hats and go marching around. You just know some gun owners in Seattle or LA would have people protesting outside their house.

That's not even taking into consideration the whole confiscation aspect. Before anyone pshaws about that, there was a mass shooting by some jackass in Connecticut. In response the state government shoved through a law without any vote or discussion retroactively making quite a few different types of weapons illegal to own (which is illegal to do). They made it the law to either sell them to the state (you wouldn't get anywhere near it's worth) or destroy them. Almost nobody complied, so the state technically made a huge portion of their citizens felons if they ever got found out.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?

Meanwhile just during this last election, California passed some new gun laws including passing a law making the ownership of magazines of any type more than 10 rounds as illegal. That shit got quietly removed because it it illegal to grandfather in your citizens into being criminals like that, and nobody would have followed the law.

What do you think would have happened if they had a registry?

(04-05-2017, 12:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not necessary, just wait for a left leaning source to publish the data in the name of "public safety".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Perfect example, sadly. Here's the awful quote from that article...

Quote:The newspaper also said it had wanted to publish even more information.
"We were surprised when we weren't able to obtain information on what kinds and how many weapons people in our market own," the newspaper said in a statement.
County clerks' offices had told the paper that "the public does not have the right to see specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns," the statement said. "Had we been able to obtain those records, we would have published them."

- - - - - - -

5. Driving isn't a constitutional right.

- - - - - - -

6. It was a little .410 shotgun and the kids were shooting at targets put on haybales. Winner got a big turkey (already cleaned), I believe. America is a big place, dude. There's a lot of different cultures in it. I didn't personally grow up on a farm, but I have plenty of friends who did and were driving tractors on their land when they were 12 to do farmwork. Had a friend in youth rodeo when he was 10 or so, I think.

When I was young, I would hop on my bike and go ranging through woods and stuff miles away from home with my friends. I think the American parents you know of are the suburban or city folk. I would play in the woods, or go fishing, or play with fireworks or whatever. Had a Swiss Army Knife when I was young and my restriction to getting a bigger pocket knife was "when you can close the lock on your own with one hand" and was taught to never cut towards myself, always away. So I have carried a pocket knife for a really long time (you'd be surprised how often it is useful for just random things) and never cut myself because I was taught to not be an idiot with it.

Teach respect for the tool and understand it's dangerous so it's not a toy, and they won't be a jackass with it. You can immediately tell if someone has been taught properly, because when handed a gun they instantly check it's loaded/unloaded status, the barrel will be pointed nowhere near anyone, and their finger won't be close to touching the trigger.

I feel like guns/gun safety when you are young is a lot like alcohol. I wasn't getting drunk or anything, but when I was younger, beer wasn't really a big deal. Have a sip, or whatever. Then when I grew up, I noticed when all my friends were at college age, it wasn't the ones who were allowed a beer now-and-then who became the big party binge drinkers. It was the ones who were ignorant of alcohol because their parents sheltered the hell out of them. The people who were seriously sheltered from guns when they were young were the ones who handled them like dangerous jackasses at first when in Basic.

Oh, and it was mostly intended as rhetorical questions, but answer is 0, and I sure hope it stays at 0.

- - - - - - -

7. Australia isn't America. America has ~13.6x the population. Australia also only has 5 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US has 17 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US also has a much larger gang problem.

At the risk of summoning GMD (because I know GMD is just lurking, waiting for a chance to call someone racist), African Americans commit 22.4% of violent crime in America despite being 13% of the population.

If we're looking at just gun homicides, then African Americans commit 151 firearm homicides per 1m compare to 15 per 1m among whites. (Whites do commit suicide with a gun at almost 3x the rate, though. 75 per 1m vs 27 per 1m.)

- - - - - - -

8. I'm not quite that Libertarian, though the licenses sure as hell don't keep shitty drivers off the road, so who knows how I will feel in a few more years. Lol.. that said, we go back to the fact that driving isn't a Constitutional right.

EDIT: That said, it wasn't until 1959 that all 50 states in the US required drivers to pass an exam.

[hollodero]

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. You have a right to own a firearm. It doesn't mean that a firearm seller has an obligation to sell to you. Go find another person who will. You thinking that's a constitutional violation is the same people who think their first amendment rights of free speech are being violated when people criticize what they say. You have the right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean people can't make fun of you for it, or your employer can't fire you for it.

That makes perfect sense. I withdraw my argument.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Honestly, when you read articles about "super gun owners" or whatever, it's very common to have guns handed down from grandparents and great grandparents. Like SSF mentioned, my family also had a Civil War cap-and-ball revolver and battle damaged regimental battle flag (currently on loan to a museum). 

1. Nice piece of history you have there, cool.
2. Exceptions in these cases can easily be made.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: As for you starting to take it over-the-top with grenade launchers, tanks, and the like.. you can legally own all of that in the US. Just have to get the right permits, which generally means paying large amounts of money. Money shouldn't be the thing keeping you from Constitutional rights.

First, I'd argue the founders didn't have these arms in mind, so for me it gets tricky with the constitution in its first stages here. I reach that point often.
I try to grasp your point... are you against permits for owning a grenade launcher or a tank? In principle or because of the money?

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2. Who determines how mentally ******** you need to be in order to no longer be allowed your Constitutional right? Now you're giving a psychiatrist (are they a government psychiatrist, a police psychiatrist, a private practice one?) the ability to strip people of rights. This is already in action, though. If they're able to function in society, I don't mind them owning.

That is right, that's what I'm doing, stripping them of rights. It's done all the time, to every principle there's a limit. You don't allow convicted felons a gun for the greater good, you don't allow people with impaired eyelight to drive a schoolbus. Who determines? Experts and lawmakers.
Now this is more about lines and where there should and should not be lines, and I can not be too convincing. I think that individual rights come to an end when they endanger other people's rights, for example by putting their health and life in danger. Mentally unstable persons with guns are a threat to family and strangers, and I think it's not misguided to think about restrictions in that light. Potential victims have rights too. But how these things should balance out, I dare not say. But I guess one needs to at least see the other side of the coin when making this fundamental argument the way you did.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Convicted felons are stripped of their right to bare arms, though they can apply to have them reinstated by a judge, since felon doesn't automatically mean violent. How violent is a history of violence? A highschool fight? A bar fight in college? That seems silly.

Yeah it seems silly, and those are also details. I am all for setting the bar way higher then instances like those, sure.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 3. I'm not sure why you think common sense (not giving firearms to blind people) means the door is open to force everyone to jump through hoops, pay fees, and register to use their rights.

I didn't make that connection directly, I used that extreme example to refute a principle (I wanted to show there are always exceptions). My stance is that I want people with arms to have a proper licence, and it's not because of blind people. Then again, I come from a country where licences are also required for certain types of dogs that could potentially kill other people - and I'm all for that too. 
I respect Americans to be less strict and less protective, that freedom comes with responsibility and both shoud stay individual.
I just don't know if it's the best way to go given the data that's created. If people are responsible enough for that amount of freedom, that is. Plain and simple.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You can bet your ass it'd cost money to go through the course, training, and licensing you described. So you're basically not only wanting any poor people to be able to use their rights. Inherited firearms are a pretty big thing, so you don't even need to have ever spent money to buy a gun in order to own a gun.

Yeah, so it costs money. I'm all against taking advantage of people that want this licence, I'm aware it would still happen to some extent. I'm OK with that. If my proposal would mean some people who can't afford the gun licence can't purchase guns, so be it. :)

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Or protested, because there's already assholes with nothing better to do than sit outside a planned parenthood with signs all day long, or wear vagina hats and go marching around. You just know some gun owners in Seattle or LA would have people protesting outside their house.

Why do you mind the vagina hats? They seem harmless in executing their rights... apart from that, I sure agree, I wouldn't want protesters in front of gun owner's houses. I think it's a bit far fetched to say gun licences would lead to that. That being said, what that newspaper did, see SSF post, was of course really awful. So I can't dismiss the point.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's not even taking into consideration the whole confiscation aspect. Before anyone pshaws about that, there was a mass shooting by some jackass in Connecticut. In response the state government shoved through a law without any vote or discussion retroactively making quite a few different types of weapons illegal to own (which is illegal to do). They made it the law to either sell them to the state (you wouldn't get anywhere near it's worth) or destroy them. Almost nobody complied, so the state technically made a huge portion of their citizens felons if they ever got found out.

OK, I know nothing more about these cases than what you said, and that seems not ok. Don't you have a Supreme Court to prevent these kind of things?

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 5. Driving isn't a constitutional right.

Fair enough.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 6. It was a little .410 shotgun and the kids were shooting at targets put on haybales. Winner got a big turkey (already cleaned), I believe. America is a big place, dude. There's a lot of different cultures in it. I didn't personally grow up on a farm, but I have plenty of friends who did and were driving tractors on their land when they were 12 to do farmwork. Had a friend in youth rodeo when he was 10 or so, I think.

When I was young, I would hop on my bike and go ranging through woods and stuff miles away from home with my friends. I think the American parents you know of are the suburban or city folk. I would play in the woods, or go fishing, or play with fireworks or whatever. Had a Swiss Army Knife when I was young and my restriction to getting a bigger pocket knife was "when you can close the lock on your own with one hand" and was taught to never cut towards myself, always away. So I have carried a pocket knife for a really long time (you'd be surprised how often it is useful for just random things) and never cut myself because I was taught to not be an idiot with it.

Teach respect for the tool and understand it's dangerous so it's not a toy, and they won't be a jackass with it. You can immediately tell if someone has been taught properly, because when handed a gun they instantly check it's loaded/unloaded status, the barrel will be pointed nowhere near anyone, and their finger won't be close to touching the trigger.

I feel like guns/gun safety when you are young is a lot like alcohol. I wasn't getting drunk or anything, but when I was younger, beer wasn't really a big deal. Have a sip, or whatever. Then when I grew up, I noticed when all my friends were at college age, it wasn't the ones who were allowed a beer now-and-then who became the big party binge drinkers. It was the ones who were ignorant of alcohol because their parents sheltered the hell out of them. The people who were seriously sheltered from guns when they were young were the ones who handled them like dangerous jackasses at first when in Basic.

Oh, and it was mostly intended as rhetorical questions, but answer is 0, and I sure hope it stays at 0.

You probably were a smart kid with good parents teaching you all the right things about guns and knifes... same can not be said about all parents. 
(And sure America is big, there are all kinds of upbringings, but the protective type is certainly one of them. But they are probably liberals and for gun control anyway, so there's no contradiction. I just generalized where I shouldn't have.)

This being said... nice childhood stories. I like those. There sure would be many individual cases where I would individually say, in that surrounding it's completely fine, these folks know what they're doing. Law can't be individual, though, and you need to put into the equation that not all families are like yours. Just for understanding where I'm coming from in this debate.
People handling guns like dangerous jackasses are out there buying guns too. And I don't think the right solution is teaching guns in school.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 7. Australia isn't America. America has ~13.6x the population. Australia also only has 5 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US has 17 cities of at least 700,000 people. The US also has a much larger gang problem.

Sure. Australia is not proof that restrictions would make a difference. It is a clue that it might make a difference, though. If it doesn't change gangs, maybe it would change other things, reducing the death toll.
An expression I don't want to use in a populistic way. The death toll of speeding is there too, still I'm against restricting vehiicles to a speed of 60 mph or so. The question for me sems to be, do the merits of more or less lawless gun ownership outweigh the damage.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: At the risk of summoning GMD (because I know GMD is just lurking, waiting for a chance to call someone racist), African Americans commit 22.4% of violent crime in America despite being 13% of the population.

If we're looking at just gun homicides, then African Americans commit 151 firearm homicides per 1m compare to 15 per 1m among whites.

Guess these are just facts. I don't think it's racist at all to point out facts. I see that as an societal and economical problem; blacks are just considerably worse-dispositioned in these areas and have lesser chance to escape it (that's how I see things from the distance, at least). The poorer folks are and the more desperate and hopeless the situation gets, the more likely is the occurrence of crime.

(04-05-2017, 01:56 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 8. I'm not quite that Libertarian, though the licenses sure as hell don't keep shitty drivers off the road, so who knows how I will feel in a few more years. Lol.. that said, we go back to the fact that driving isn't a Constitutional right.

I go back to acknowledging that... my argument was more a common sense one. But that leads me to the point that I think the second amendment is stupid from a common sense standpoint, but I know I don't even need to argue that.
My common sense just dictates me, if driving needs a licence, so does shooting guns. The constitutional argument is a technical one, though of course a very strong one in reality.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-05-2017, 03:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: First, I'd argue the founders didn't have these arms in mind, so for me it gets tricky with the constitution in its first stages here. I reach that point often.
I try to grasp your point... are you against permits for owning a grenade launcher or a tank? In principle or because of the money?

They didn't imagine fighter jets and ballistic missiles, no, but I will point out that the military weaponry of the day was muskets and cannons, and civilians were most certainly allowed to own muskets and cannons back then. (I imagine cannons were less commonly privately owned, but I guarantee that civilian ships had them.) The 2nd Amendment is based part around staying capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government, part because the British did indeed start doing gun confiscations of all known owners before the Revolution, part because there was no realistic way for people to be protected by police in the rural areas, and part to put food on the table.

All four of those are still viable reasons today.

That is right, that's what I'm doing, stripping them of rights. It's done all the time, to every principle there's a limit. You don't allow convicted felons a gun for the greater good, you don't allow people with impaired eyelight to drive a schoolbus. Who determines? Experts and lawmakers.
Now this is more about lines and where there should and should not be lines, and I can not be too convincing. I think that individual rights come to an end when they endanger other people's rights, for example by putting their health and life in danger. Mentally unstable persons with guns are a threat to family and strangers, and I think it's not misguided to think about restrictions in that light. Potential victims have rights too. But how these things should balance out, I dare not say. But I guess one needs to at least see the other side of the coin when making this fundamental argument the way you did.

The problem when you start talking about potential victims is then we're punishing people on what-ifs. The US isn't The Minority Report yet. Still have to commit the crime and be proven guilty before you can be punished. Blind with a gun is obviously no longer a what-if, obviously, that's just simply a certainly, but it's rarely going to be that clear cut.

Part of my problem with the psychologists getting involved is... there's no guarantee they will keep their political views out of their decisions. In fact the odds are much more likely that it will influence their decisions quite a bit. Say you have an adult who had their parent die and took it pretty rough and was on anti-depressants for 3 months. That was say.. 2 years ago and they haven't been on them for 21 months now. Thinking it'd be a good vacation, they want to buy a gun to go on an Elk hunting trip. The psychiatrist sees that they were once on anti-depressants but is more or less fine. Would a psychiatrist who is staunchly anti-gun be more likely to deny that guy?

If it's a government payroll psychiatrist, who's going to be the one who appoints/hires them? There's been plenty of mandates from a political party in power to other governmental groups that influence things quite a bit. Take for instance a few years back when the IRS was specifically targeting Tea Party political groups that were applying for tax free status, while letting Democrat groups through normally. That was leading up to the 2012 election.


Yeah it seems silly, and those are also details. I am all for setting the bar way higher then instances like those, sure.

Generally it's a felony if the bar is way higher, so it's more or less already handled. Just didn't like the low vague "history of violence".

I didn't make that connection directly, I used that extreme example to refute a principle (I wanted to show there are always exceptions). My stance is that I want people with arms to have a proper licence, and it's not because of blind people. Then again, I come from a country where licences are also required for certain types of dogs that could potentially kill other people - and I'm all for that too. 
I respect Americans to be less strict and less protective, that freedom comes with responsibility and both shoud stay individual.
I just don't know if it's the best way to go given the data that's created. If people are responsible enough for that amount of freedom, that is. Plain and simple.

See, and I find a license for a dog absolutely silly. Lol... as we've seen in Europe, if people want to murder people, they will find a way. A knife/axe/vehicle/bomb is just as bad. Also if they're really insistent, it's not impossible to get guns there.

Yeah, so it costs money. I'm all against taking advantage of people that want this licence, I'm aware it would still happen to some extent. I'm OK with that. If my proposal would mean some people who can't afford the gun licence can't purchase guns, so be it. :)

See, here in the US, anytime someone tries to do anything that'll potentially inconvenience poorer people, it is called racist. States that try to make having a State ID a requirement are pretty much roasted by the Left as racist. In the case of guns, I simply don't want to pay someone money to own the property I already own. Lol

Why do you mind the vagina hats? They seem harmless in executing their rights... apart from that, I sure agree, I wouldn't want protesters in front of gun owner's houses. I think it's a bit far fetched to say gun licences would lead to that. That being said, what that newspaper did, see SSF post, was of course really awful. So I can't dismiss the point.

Hah, I just thought vagina hats was a funny thing to include. Who knows what they'd be wearing, but the point is, they would be targeted in some way. Some really shitty things have been done to gun owners, police, judges, anything, as far as people getting ahold of their personal information and addresses and such, and distributing them.


OK, I know nothing more about these cases than what you said, and that seems not ok. Don't you have a Supreme Court to prevent these kind of things?

It takes 12 to 24 months from the time the Supreme Court is petitioned to when they make a ruling. Of course that assumes they even agree to take the case and don't send it down to a lower level court. Of course often getting TO the Supreme Court is first prefaced with multiple lower courts to begin with, each taking months or more, each with an appeal to a higher court, etc.

Our justice system is pretty well F'd up.

Fair enough.



You probably were a smart kid with good parents teaching you all the right things about guns and knifes... same can not be said about all parents. 
(And sure America is big, there are all kinds of upbringings, but the protective type is certainly one of them. But they are probably liberals and for gun control anyway, so there's no contradiction. I just generalized where I shouldn't have.)

This being said... nice childhood stories. I like those. There sure would be many individual cases where I would individually say, in that surrounding it's completely fine, these folks know what they're doing. Law can't be individual, though, and you need to put into the equation that not all families are like yours. Just for understanding where I'm coming from in this debate.
People handling guns like dangerous jackasses are out there buying guns too. And I don't think the right solution is teaching guns in school.

Thing is, I have plenty of other friends who grew up that way and they're the same.

I will bring up the point of Switzerland. They have one of the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and going to ranges to shoot is a hobby for them. If you grow up around it, it's normal, and you're taught properly, it's not a problem. The government even issues their militia (basically all men 20-30) weapons and until fairly recently issued ammunition for them, as well.  They also subsidize ammunition for it if you want to get some shooting in with it.

Meanwhile Switzerland had 18 attempted or completed homicides involving guns in 2014. In a country of over 8m.

Sure. Australia is not proof that restrictions would make a difference. It is a clue that it might make a difference, though. If it doesn't change gangs, maybe it would change other things, reducing the death toll.
An expression I don't want to use in a populistic way. The death toll of speeding is there too, still I'm against restricting vehiicles to a speed of 60 mph or so. The question for me sems to be, do the merits of more or less lawless gun ownership outweigh the damage.

And bacon I am sure is slowly killing us all, but I sure as hell am not going to stop eating it.   The merit of gun ownership is a lot more personal when you know the police will never get to your house quicker than 20 minutes, unless one just so magically happened to be nearby. Also if you enjoy some deer jerky and sausage. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Guess these are just facts. I don't think it's racist at all to point out facts. I see that as an societal and economical problem; blacks are just considerably worse-dispositioned in these areas and have lesser chance to escape it (that's how I see things from the distance, at least). The poorer folks are and the more desperate and hopeless the situation gets, the more likely is the occurrence of crime.

It's true that it's partly due to economic problems as I do believe that violent crime goes up with poor whites as well, but I don't think it comes anywhere close to being equal.

I go back to acknowledging that... my argument was more a common sense one. But that leads me to the point that I think the second amendment is stupid from a common sense standpoint, but I know I don't even need to argue that.
My common sense just dictates me, if driving needs a licence, so does shooting guns. The constitutional argument is a technical one, though of course a very strong one in reality.

I think it's really just a difference in culture and population density. In the US, most of the cries of strict gun laws come from people in cities. Of course what makes that ridiculous is that while they want tighter gun laws, the criminals there give 0 shits regardless of the law, so it would almost only effect the people who were already law abiding.

I see a bit where you're coming from on some of it, I just think it's really a culture gap that we'd probably never be able to bridge unless you grew up where I grew up, and I grew up where you grew up. Lol