Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Toxxus]

8 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

1. People who operate cars are required to hold a valid license, and the vehicles that they drive are required to be registered if driven off of private property. By extension of this argument point, should we require licensing of people who want a gun, and then register their guns?

 

1-  I live in state where I had to pass a criminal background check, get fingerprinted, pass a written exam and then pass a range test to get a concealed carry permit.  This same state requires that concealed carry permit in order to open carry.

 

I'm pretty good with this system.  It is sensible and provides a minimum level of education and competence one should have in order to carry safely.  I'm fine with it in Texas - for now.  I'd be fine with it, in general, for everyone if I could trust the government - which I cannot.

 

That being said, I've seen states like New York where they make it so impossible to get a permit that it is effectively a complete gun ban unless you can show dire need or have a hook.  The government cannot be trusted in this regard and that's why the 2nd amendment is set up the way it is.

 

Additionally, as long as the 2nd amendment has, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as part of the language any gun restriction is unconstitutional.  I strongly dislike unconstitutional laws as there are already many and the government is getting far too comfortable ignoring our constitutional rights as it continues to creep into every nook and cranny of day to day life.

 

Here's an area where I probably break ranks with most pro-gun types.  I think criminals should be allowed to have firearms.  Your constitutional rights shouldn't become null and void as soon as you commit a crime.

Should we toss all of these out the window as soon as you get convicted of a misdemeanor?

 

1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

3 - No quartering of soldiers.

4 - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

5 - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

6 - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.

7 - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.

8 - Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.

[Pattern Ghost]

7 minutes ago, Toxxus said:

Should we toss all of these out the window as soon as you get convicted of a misdemeanor?

 

Let's be fair. The only misdemeanor that bars one from gun ownership is a domestic violence conviction. I'm personally fine with that one.

[Toxxus]

48 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Let's be fair. The only misdemeanor that bars one from gun ownership is a domestic violence conviction. I'm personally fine with that one.

 

It's a despicable class of person, no doubt, but if you're OK with constitutional protections vanishing in that situation you're opening a Pandora's box of abuse for yourself and others.

 

Those rights need to stay intact - for everyone - whether we like them or not.  Especially when you factor in the possibility of error and corruption in the justice system.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm for convicts being able to petition to have their rights fully restored, but yes, I'm also OK with limiting rights for violent offenders. Most of which are repeat offenders. You can't really agree with the argument that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders then a few posts later assert that that same group that commits most violent crime should keep their right to own guns. I mean, you could. I just don't see the logic in it.

 

Are there subgroups that might be unfairly impacted? Sure. Innocent people have been convicted. Non-violent felons should probably be excluded. And probably more examples. Those issues can be addressed separately by criminal justice reform and a national level process for rights restoration.

[Toxxus]

52 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm for convicts being able to petition to have their rights fully restored, but yes, I'm also OK with limiting rights for violent offenders. Most of which are repeat offenders. You can't really agree with the argument that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders then a few posts later assert that that same group that commits most violent crime should keep their right to own guns. I mean, you could. I just don't see the logic in it.

 

Are there subgroups that might be unfairly impacted? Sure. Innocent people have been convicted. Non-violent felons should probably be excluded. And probably more examples. Those issues can be addressed separately by criminal justice reform and a national level process for rights restoration.

 

1-  Repeat violent offenders should probably be staying in prison longer until they can get the kind of training and behavioral modification they need to stop returning to prison.  I cannot properly state how strongly I hate our current system which almost guarantees an endless death spiral of recidivism.  Ex-con's need a fair shot to be able to survive w/out resorting to crime.  Get them the interpersonal and professional skills they need so they don't come back.  We could learn a LOT from Norway in this regard.

 

2-  All the rights should be retained for all the people.  Even the violent criminals.  Even the people who vote for politicians we don't like or feel differently about hot topics than we do.  Besides, a violent criminal is going to get another gun.  He/she is just going to have to work a little harder to get it.  The percentage of illegally obtained firearms used in commission of a crime is roughly 80%.

 

3-  I'd be fine for a national level process for rights restoration if the current abuses of rights weren't already being run by the government.  Here's a fun sample from the ACLU on what to do if you've been placed on the No Fly list:

• You should know that the letter does not confirm or deny whether you have been included on the No Fly List, whether you remain on it, or whether you can fly in the future. The government also refuses to provide any notice or reason for inclusion on the No Fly List or a meaningful hearing at which you can clear your name. Unfortunately, currently, the only way for a non-citizen to discover if they have been removed from the No Fly List or not after following this procedure is by purchasing an airline ticket and attempting to board.
• Aka - You have no legal recourse to resolve the problem.  There isn't even a judge or jury involved.  Not only is this impossible to resolve - It clearly violates your right to due process.

 

I feel like most people forget that the Bill of Rights is to protect us from our government.  The Founders were painfully aware of how tyranny worked from personal experience and they wanted to stave it off for as long as possible.  We somehow act like that could never happen here while we ignore thought crimes being imposed in the UK and Venezuela abusing its own starving citizens.

 

[Old Man]

5 hours ago, Sociotard said:

If I could wave a magic gun-control-legislation wand, I'd start with something to give me better data.

 

We could start by voting for parties that don't explicitly forbid the collection of good data on gun violence.

[Old Man]

I also wanted to add that the recent shooting in Darwin was committed with an illegal (for Australia) 12 gauge pump action shotgun, whereas most mass shootings in the U.S. seem to be performed with perfectly legal assault rifles or high-capacity automatic pistols (cf. Virginia Beach). 

[Ternaugh]

5 minutes ago, Old Man said:

I also wanted to add that the recent shooting in Darwin was committed with an illegal (for Australia) 12 gauge pump action shotgun, whereas most mass shootings in the U.S. seem to be performed with perfectly legal assault rifles or high-capacity automatic pistols (cf. Virginia Beach). 

 

For Las Vegas, it was multiple assault rifles with bump stocks, which were legally obtained by the shooter, as were the more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition that he fired into the concert crowd from his room's windows. 58 dead, and 442 injured.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

I also wanted to add that the recent shooting in Darwin was committed with an illegal (for Australia) 12 gauge pump action shotgun,

 

Pump action shotguns are legal in Australia. I'm assuming not legal for the shooter because he was out on parole, but some folks (primarily farmers, collectors and sports shooters) can own pump shotguns. They have various tiers with various levels of restrictions on each tier.

[Old Man]

Pump action shotguns are Australian Category C firearms and can only be legally owned by farm workers, collectors, and registered clay target sportsmen, which I'm guessing the perp wasn't any of.

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

For Las Vegas, it was multiple assault rifles with bump stocks, which were legally obtained by the shooter, as were the more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition that he fired into the concert crowd from his room's windows. 58 dead, and 442 injured.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

 

But if he hadn't had any of that, he'd have just used a knife to kill 58 and wound 442. 

[megaplayboy]

Just now, Old Man said:

 

But if he hadn't had any of that, he'd have just killed 58 people and wounded 442 with a knife.  /s

Yes, if he had just had a means of throwing a thousand knives a couple hundred yards in a manner of minutes.  

[Pattern Ghost]

5 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Pump action shotguns are Australian Category C firearms and can only be legally owned by farm workers, collectors, and registered clay target sportsmen, which I'm guessing the perp wasn't any of. 

 

So, they're not illegal like you first said.

[Old Man]

4 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

So, they're not illegal like you first said.

 

On the contrary, it was just as illegal as if you had a fully automatic machine gun in your possession right now. 

[megaplayboy]

I feel like people who talk about constitutional rights should understand what standards of scrutiny are, and should understand that constitutional rights are not absolute rights.  Are 1st amendment rights absolute?  What about 4th amendment rights?  If they're not, then why would 2nd amendment rights be absolute and not subject to reasonable regulation and restriction?   Virtually every gun law on the books or proposed...short of an all out ban...is arguably constitutional.  If you're going to argue against gun control policy proposals, focus on why you think it's not a great idea, non on "it's unconstitutional", because to me(I am a lawyer), it's 1) a copout, 2) probably not legally accurate, and 3) a way of saying "I don't like it but I can't come up with a clear reason why it shouldn't be done".  

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

On the contrary, it was just as illegal as if you had a fully automatic machine gun in your possession right now. 

 

It's not illegal for me to have a fully automatic machine gun, either. I'd just have to cough up the $200 for the tax stamp, pass the background check, and wait for the paperwork to go through. That, and have thousands of dollars to blow on the weapon itself.

[Lord Liaden]

I cannot tell you how much what you just said frightens me.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I cannot tell you how much what you just said frightens me.

 

Don't worry, I'm basically broke. No full auto for me.

 

Want to be really scared? It's easier to get an NFA item here than it is to get pretty much any firearm in Canada.

[Toxxus]

15 hours ago, Old Man said:

whereas most mass shootings in the U.S. seem to be performed with perfectly legal assault rifles or high-capacity automatic pistols (cf. Virginia Beach). 

 

I hope you meant semi-automatic pistols because fully automatic pistols are way harder to get.  It's mostly pistols.

 

And when you look at total deaths (not just mass shootings) it is pistols by a much, much larger margin.

 

More people get beaten to death with blunt objects than killed by rifles each year.

 

I demand common-sense chair-leg bans now!  Why with these four-legged-chairs you can equip your whole gang to kill with just 2 or 3 of them.  Outrageous!

 

[csyphrett]

2 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

I hope you meant semi-automatic pistols because fully automatic pistols are way harder to get.  It's mostly pistols.

 

And when you look at total deaths (not just mass shootings) it is pistols by a much, much larger margin.

 

More people get beaten to death with blunt objects than killed by rifles each year.

 

I demand common-sense chair-leg bans now!  Why with these four-legged-chairs you can equip your whole gang to kill with just 2 or 3 of them.  Outrageous!

 

Just curious but why is 3% unknown? They couldn't find a bullet?
CES 

[Cygnia]

Might be a case of the projectile is too damaged to determined what fired it?

[Toxxus]

7 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

Just curious but why is 3% unknown? They couldn't find a bullet?

 

Cygnia brings up a good point.

 

My first thought was paperwork being shoddy/incomplete and not specifying exactly the type of firearm used.

[megaplayboy]

The Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of high capacity pistols.  Most modern 9mm semi-autos will carry around 15 rounds per magazine.  Two pistols, one in each hand, holding 30 rounds, compares with an AR-style rifle carrying 30 rounds.  

[Toxxus]

55 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

The Virginia Tech shooter used a pair of high capacity pistols.  Most modern 9mm semi-autos will carry around 15 rounds per magazine.  Two pistols, one in each hand, holding 30 rounds, compares with an AR-style rifle carrying 30 rounds.  

 

I agree with you on the magazine capacity of larger pistols, but two pistols are nowhere near comparable with an AR-style rifle.

 

The rifle is substantially more accurate and produces wounds that are many times more lethal. 

Copied from a website I just lost track of:  The ammunition used by the AR-15, a .223 Remington cartridge, travels at approximately 3,000 feet per second and causes a significant cavitation effect — where a bullet is travelling so fast that it sends shock waves through the body and severely damages or kills displaced tissue.

 

It's also worth mentioning that lower tier bullet proof vests will be penetrated by the rifle and leave a dead security officer when handgun rounds would be stopped.

 

Rifles are so much worse.

[csyphrett]

Typically unless the bullet is a magnum or cut down rifle cartridges like are used in the Casull, a pistol round will deform more and break when they hit a hard substance like bone. The NYME cut a guy open and found a 25 had entered a guy's skull through his eye and bounced around inside the brain case before losing its energy. Did no out damage to the skull at all. 38's have also been known to bounce off rib cages. .45's may break the bone and shatter. A 357  or 44 magnum have shot through cars.

 

Rifle bullets have been known to go through concrete walls which would stop a pistol round.

 

Pistols are easier to carry and concealable. They're easier to reload. Sometimes you might have to shoot the target more than one time before they go down.

 

You shoot a guy with a rifle, sometimes the bullet will keep going and hit somebody behind the original target.

CES