Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

46 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

LOL. You have no understanding of police indemnity and absolutely no training or experience in the military, law enforcement or even private sector security, but you're going to use an appeal to authority argument against me, when I have experience in all of these areas? You remember, we were all here when you were going through law school, right? And that I had already served in a law enforcement role decades before you cracked a book on the subject? Come on. We all should know a little about each other by now.

I've read the case law on the standards for "justifiable" lethal force.  I've read various critiques of police training regarding the tendency for standard procedure to lead inevitably to escalation in too many confrontations.  The standards for lethal force are too permissive as they stand now.  Period.  How many "justifiable" shoots were "necessary" shoots?  Nobody knows.  Because they're not conditioned to question the necessity of these escalatory confrontations.  The trend in police training is toward de-escalation training for precisely this reason.  Ditto for implicit bias training, body cameras and DOJ consent decrees.  

I am a lawyer.  Shall I describe to you the various background checks, licensing requirements, job stress, ethics training, supplemental legal education, malpractice risk, consequences of failing to secure a protective order for a client in a DV case, etc?  Just having a hard job does not exempt one from hard scrutiny or real accountability.  Police have strong unions, they have prosecutors who are reluctant to bring charges because they depend heavily on officer assistance and testimony, they have Supreme Court precedents giving them wide leeway imo, and they have jurors who still tend to give them great deference in any case involving allegations of misapplication of lethal force.  Unarmed civilians...do not have these things going for them.  

 

How many times have you had to fire your gun on the job?  

[Pattern Ghost]

You're advocating a foolish and risky practice, and nothing in your above post shows that you have any qualifications to make that recommendation.

 

18 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

How many times have you had to fire your gun on the job?  

 

Aside from training, zero. Does this negate my training? Does it negate my ongoing professional development and on the job experiences or the experiences of my peers and trainers? Killing someone isn't necessary to understand these issues.

 

And you ask this when you're citing your reading list? I've seen you spout off with "I'm a lawyer" several times, but you've never stated what your area of practice is. Judging by your complete lack of understanding of use of force law, tactics, basic anatomy (hint: legs are full of arteries that can lead to quick death if severed, and not particularly safer to shoot than the torso), police indemnity, police training, actual experience working with German law enforcement (which I have, both undercover and as a patrol officer in Berlin), and any kind of understanding of what bullets do when they leave the barrel of a gun . . . I'm going to guess that your reading of case law is a lot less practical than my own experience.

 

Professional experience aside, I can provide citations to back up my claim, from many sources more qualified than myself. I won't. Because I'm getting annoyed with you wasting my time with nonsense and anyone searching for something like  "why don't police shoot for the leg" or a similar term will quickly find the info. I also won't provide you links because you never seem to back up any of your claims with anything other than logical fallacies. (Hint: You haven't even provided a link to this alleged German shooting, so I can't properly analyze it. If it even happened.)

 

I'm going to say this one more time: If you shoot someone, you shoot center mass. Period. Shooting for any other limbs is unsafe and irresponsible.

 

[megaplayboy]

30 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

You're advocating a foolish and risky practice, and nothing in your above post shows that you have any qualifications to make that recommendation.

 

 

Aside from training, zero. Does this negate my training? Does it negate my ongoing professional development and on the job experiences or the experiences of my peers and trainers? Killing someone isn't necessary to understand these issues.

 

And you ask this when you're citing your reading list? I've seen you spout off with "I'm a lawyer" several times, but you've never stated what your area of practice is. Judging by your complete lack of understanding of use of force law, tactics, basic anatomy (hint: legs are full of arteries that can lead to quick death if severed, and not particularly safer to shoot than the torso), police indemnity, police training, actual experience working with German law enforcement (which I have, both undercover and as a patrol officer in Berlin), and any kind of understanding of what bullets do when they leave the barrel of a gun . . . I'm going to guess that your reading of case law is a lot less practical than my own experience.

 

Professional experience aside, I can provide citations to back up my claim, from many sources more qualified than myself. I won't. Because I'm getting annoyed with you wasting my time with nonsense and anyone searching for something like  "why don't police shoot for the leg" or a similar term will quickly find the info. I also won't provide you links because you never seem to back up any of your claims with anything other than logical fallacies. (Hint: You haven't even provided a link to this alleged German shooting, so I can't properly analyze it. If it even happened.)

 

I'm going to say this one more time: If you shoot someone, you shoot center mass. Period. Shooting for any other limbs is unsafe and irresponsible.

 

The current lethal force standard rests on "objective reasonableness" and lethal force can be justified if the officer merely perceives a threat.  But, again, justification and necessity are two different things.  "Was the shooting objectively necessary?" is a dicier proposition for the LEO.  

Have you had de-escalation training?  Implicit bias training?  

 

For the record:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/871646/samurai-sword-drunk-shot-as-he-charges-cops/

 

[Starlord]

*coughs uncomfortably*

 

What was that, 10 pages of Guns, Guns, and more guns?  So...NOW can we get back to making fun of Trump?  

[Pattern Ghost]

33 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

The current lethal force standard rests on "objective reasonableness" and lethal force can be justified if the officer merely perceives a threat.  But, again, justification and necessity are two different things.  "Was the shooting objectively necessary?" is a dicier proposition for the LEO.

 

This article has a pretty good run down on how the objective reasonableness standard. This is essentially what's being applied to police shootings to determine if they're justified. And I agree with you that the standard is too lax. I was held to a higher standard as an MP. Civilians are held to higher standards. Police must have a bit more leeway in these matters and some level of indemnification in order to safely perform their jobs, but that's another discussion.

 

I don't take issue with your stance here. I take issue with promoting shooting for other than center of mass, for the reasons of safety noted above, but those are only some of the considerations.

 

40 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

Have you had de-escalation training?  Implicit bias training?  

 

I've had and taught de-escalation. That's why I've never had to go too far up the use of force continuum on the job. I haven't had as much implicit bias training, since it wasn't a thing back when I was an MP. It's been part of my healthcare security training, which is a position that carries a lot of varied certification requirements where I work.

 

Again, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. We were talking about shooting for the legs to start with. This doesn't really speak to that. I'm talking about tactical and safety issues when the moment comes to pull the trigger, not how we arrive at that moment.

 

44 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

For the record:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/871646/samurai-sword-drunk-shot-as-he-charges-cops/

 

 

Thanks for the link. There's not much info in the text to go on, and certainly nothing to indicate that the shooter deliberately hit the leg. Judging from the pictures, I'm going to say that the more likely scenario is the gun discharging as it was being raised to target, and the leg hit being incidental to that. It's actually fairly common. If you look at the first picture, you can see the officer's mouth open to shout commands, but with his finger already on the trigger. So, he's not mentally prepared to shoot, but he's on trigger already. It's apparent that the officer hasn't brought his sights into play, and that he started the encounter entirely too close to the subject. If anything, I'd say he's pretty rusty on his skills, not some German John Wayne.

[Pattern Ghost]

35 minutes ago, Starlord said:

What was that, 10 pages of Guns, Guns, and more guns?  So...NOW can we get back to making fun of Trump?  

 

Well, guns are going to be a hot topic in the election, so it's pretty easy to see how the topic has drifted that way lately. I'm not saying that conversation is particularly productive, because I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote for whoever the non-Trump Democrat is, even if they collect my guns at the ballot box. And I'm equally sure that none of them are going to try to enact "common sense" gun control measures that actually exhibit common sense anyway.

 

EDIT: Though I do have to give Creepy Uncle Joe credit for having a modicum of common sense with regards to this leg shooting thing:

 

"When Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a 'minimum force' bill that would require officers to shoot an assailant in the arm or the leg, the VP called the legislation a 'John Wayne Bill' because officers cannot reasonably be expected to shoot like they do in Hollywood.”

[megaplayboy]

3 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

This article has a pretty good run down on how the objective reasonableness standard. This is essentially what's being applied to police shootings to determine if they're justified. And I agree with you that the standard is too lax. I was held to a higher standard as an MP. Civilians are held to higher standards. Police must have a bit more leeway in these matters and some level of indemnification in order to safely perform their jobs, but that's another discussion.

 

I don't take issue with your stance here. I take issue with promoting shooting for other than center of mass, for the reasons of safety noted above, but those are only some of the considerations.

 

 

I've had and taught de-escalation. That's why I've never had to go too far up the use of force continuum on the job. I haven't had as much implicit bias training, since it wasn't a thing back when I was an MP. It's been part of my healthcare security training, which is a position that carries a lot of varied certification requirements where I work.

 

Again, I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. We were talking about shooting for the legs to start with. This doesn't really speak to that. I'm talking about tactical and safety issues when the moment comes to pull the trigger, not how we arrive at that moment.

 

 

Thanks for the link. There's not much info in the text to go on, and certainly nothing to indicate that the shooter deliberately hit the leg. Judging from the pictures, I'm going to say that the more likely scenario is the gun discharging as it was being raised to target, and the leg hit being incidental to that. It's actually fairly common. If you look at the first picture, you can see the officer's mouth open to shout commands, but with his finger already on the trigger. So, he's not mentally prepared to shoot, but he's on trigger already. It's apparent that the officer hasn't brought his sights into play, and that he started the encounter entirely too close to the subject. If anything, I'd say he's pretty rusty on his skills, not some German John Wayne.

But if he had shot the guy center of mass, he might have been dead rather than lying on the ground with a leg wound.  That doesn't really seem like an optimal outcome here.  

[Pattern Ghost]

5 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

But if he had shot the guy center of mass, he might have been dead rather than lying on the ground with a leg wound.  That doesn't really seem like an optimal outcome here.  

 

The optimal outcome is that nobody is injured, and no shots are fired. The subject here was probably not able to be de-escalated (though at least back in the late 80's/early 90s, German police weren't really all that interested in de-escalation), so the next best outcome would be nobody dying. This was indeed achieved. As they say, any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

 

This doesn't change the fact that shooting for anything other than center of mass is dangerous and stupid.

 

Edit: Of course, shooting someone in the leg can easily be lethal. Given immediate medical attention, a center of mass hit from a handgun isn't really that much more likely to be more lethal than a leg hit.

[megaplayboy]

4 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Well, guns are going to be a hot topic in the election, so it's pretty easy to see how the topic has drifted that way lately. I'm not saying that conversation is particularly productive, because I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote for whoever the non-Trump Democrat is, even if they collect my guns at the ballot box. And I'm equally sure that none of them are going to try to enact "common sense" gun control measures that actually exhibit common sense anyway.

 

EDIT: Though I do have to give Creepy Uncle Joe credit for having a modicum of common sense with regards to this leg shooting thing:

 

"When Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a 'minimum force' bill that would require officers to shoot an assailant in the arm or the leg, the VP called the legislation a 'John Wayne Bill' because officers cannot reasonably be expected to shoot like they do in Hollywood.”

To be fair, even tasers carry a decent level of risk.  More than a few cases of taser-related deaths.  IIRC many jurisdictions now have tighter guidelines on taser use(when, how many times, etc.).  

I wonder about the necessity of most traffic stops in an era of dashboard cameras and the internet.  Short of someone driving recklessly, you can scan someone's plate, look up their info and record, and conceivably digitally cite them and send notice via text message or email.  I also wonder whether officers really need to walk around "strapped" in all circumstances.  

[Old Man]

I don't know if anyone's really arguing whether cops ought to be permitted to carry guns.  Of course they should, except maybe in St. Louis.

 

Cvilian gun ownership, on the other hand, largely serves no purpose and often is counterproductive.  People with guns in their homes are more likely to die by gunfire.  Instances of defensive firearm usage are exceedingly rare compared to criminal usage.  Gun owners may think they have a right to defend themselves with guns, but in reality all they're doing is endangering themselves and the people that live with them.  And making it easier for bad guys to arm themselves.

[Pattern Ghost]

40 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

To be fair, even tasers carry a decent level of risk.  More than a few cases of taser-related deaths.  IIRC many jurisdictions now have tighter guidelines on taser use(when, how many times, etc.).  

 

I'll tell you that the company that makes TASERs has books and books and books of research telling you how safe they are. Then they proceed to train you about all of the circumstances where you shouldn't use their product. These include falling and drowning hazards, pace makers, etc. But they'll never admit that you can kill someone from the electrical charge itself, no matter what the subject's medical history is. I don't like them as an option. Too unreliable both in achieving the goal of stopping someone and of doing so safely.

 

40 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I wonder about the necessity of most traffic stops in an era of dashboard cameras and the internet.  Short of someone driving recklessly, you can scan someone's plate, look up their info and record, and conceivably digitally cite them and send notice via text message or email.

 

Traffic stops serve two purposes that serve the public good: The first is that they discourage reckless driving behaviors. Traffic patrols are often targeted at problem areas, such as a dangerous intersection, or a road where drivers are prone to excessive speeds. If people see enough traffic stops in an area, they get the message that they need to start obeying the rules in the area. I'm not saying that this is going to stick in the long term, but I will say that the three lane highway between the main highway and my street has been heavily policed for speed for the last year and a half, and that it's had an impact. The second purpose is the stuff you find incidental to the stop, such as the vehicle being stolen, outstanding warrants, etc.

 

40 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I also wonder whether officers really need to walk around "strapped" in all circumstances.  

 

Are you still in the DC metro area? I'd suggest doing a few ride alongs with local police departments then asking yourself that question again. I'll give my opinion, though: It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. And circumstances can change quickly when dealing with people.

[Pattern Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Cvilian gun ownership, on the other hand, largely serves no purpose and often is counterproductive.  People with guns in their homes are more likely to die by gunfire.  Instances of defensive firearm usage are exceedingly rare compared to criminal usage.  Gun owners may think they have a right to defend themselves with guns, but in reality all they're doing is endangering themselves and the people that live with them.  And making it easier for bad guys to arm themselves.

 

I disagree with all of this. But you already knew that.

[megaplayboy]

Half the time I think firearms enthusiasts start from the proposition that they like guns, and work backwards from this conclusion to reverse engineer justifications for ownership of whatever flavor of gun they like.  

[Pattern Ghost]

Just now, megaplayboy said:

Half the time I think firearms enthusiasts start from the proposition that they like guns, and work backwards from this conclusion to reverse engineer justifications for ownership of whatever flavor of gun they like.  

 

I frequent the one semi-sane firearms forum that I've found, which I've been visiting about as long as I have here. And I'll tell you that it's WAY more than half the time. Walter Mitty is alive and well.

[megaplayboy]

Just now, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I frequent the one semi-sane firearms forum that I've found, which I've been visiting about as long as I have here. And I'll tell you that it's WAY more than half the time. Walter Mitty is alive and well.

I mean, I like guns, but I like free speech too, and there are plenty of restrictions and conditions on that!  

[Pattern Ghost]

24 minutes ago, megaplayboy said:

I mean, I like guns, but I like free speech too, and there are plenty of restrictions and conditions on that!  

 

I'm OK with certain levels of restriction, though not as many as you'd probably like. For instance:

 

I think it'd be great if training in gun safety, marksmanship, and local use of force laws were mandatory . . . but only if the government funded that training. They could raise the money with a very small tax on firearms, firearms parts, ammo and accessories. Less than a 1% tax could probably cover it.

 

I think it'd be great if the government partnered with the (don't freak out) NRA and developed a free online safety and legal course for new gun owners and made it mandatory to include links to said course with every firearms purchase. Yeah, I know I said NRA, but they do already have decent material available, and it'd be nice to see them do something useful for a change.

 

I think that safe storage incentives are a good thing. For example, my state doesn't charge sales tax on gun safes.

 

I think that no state should put licensing requirements or any other requirements on a firearm that's not being carried outside of the home or is only used outside the home for other legal activities (hunting, taking to train,  sporting use, etc. -- those things usually exempted by law anyway even where guns aren't legal to carry outside the home).

 

Once you move outside the home with a firearm, then the impact you have on the rights of others skyrockets. Here, I'm fine with training and background check requirements, and in passing those costs to the gun owner directly, so long as they aren't punitive. I don't, however, believe that the state requiring a reason to carry passes constitutional muster.

 

I'm OK with banning the carry of long arms outside the home, aside from the usual hunting and sporting use exemptions. I'm perfectly fine if morons who take their ARs to the park to "educate" the public on gun rights were thoroughly stifled. I don't think this one would have any real impact on mass shootings with rifles, aside from being automatic probable cause to stop someone, I just don't like morons running around in public with rifles.

 

As I said before, I'm OK with magazine capacity restrictions on centerfire rifle caliber weapons. I'm not OK with banning AR15 rifles, or other rifles based on their cosmetic or ergonomic features. Canada's model for long guns (aside from the stringent requirements to even own a firearm) might not be too bad of a one to adopt in the US, though doing so would involve a confiscation buyback.

 

 

 

[megaplayboy]

Based on the recent news on the scandals there, I'm not sure whether the NRA is really viable as an advocacy group without a major house-cleaning.  At a minimum, Wayne Lapierre has to resign.  

I think the government should act on existing ATF research on the sources of crime guns and draft laws and regulations accordingly.  I support fully funding the ATF as opposed to the Republican tactic of starving the agency of funding.  Since the primary concern is about guns getting into the "wrong hands"(violently disturbed individuals, convicted criminals), I'm generally supportive of fine-tuning policy to get closer to that goal without unduly burdening the general public.  

[Pattern Ghost]

Just now, megaplayboy said:

Based on the recent news on the scandals there, I'm not sure whether the NRA is really viable as an advocacy group without a major house-cleaning.  At a minimum, Wayne Lapierre has to resign.  

 

I agree. But they have long-established safety training, which pre-dates some of the shadier eras.

[megaplayboy]

Just now, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I agree. But they have long-established safety training, which pre-dates some of the shadier eras.

Sure, prior to 1968, that's primarily what they were about.  

[Pattern Ghost]

1 minute ago, megaplayboy said:

Sure, prior to 1968, that's primarily what they were about.  

 

Yep.

[ScottishFox]

11 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Cops also catch a lot of unjustified flak from people who have no idea of how to do their job.

 

More true than you know this week in Philadelphia.  Taunting cops while they are being shot at trying to get a crazy person into custody is some evil shit.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/philadelphia-shooting-crowd-taunted-police-report-1454473

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

But if he had shot the guy center of mass, he might have been dead rather than lying on the ground with a leg wound.  That doesn't really seem like an optimal outcome here.  

 

The optimal outcome, frankly, does  not include a drunk with a machete, samurai sword and rifle charging around yelling "Your heads belong to me".  While not "optimal", I would much rather the officer took the action most likely to stop that drunk - even if that option is lethal force - than take the risk of someone else being seriously injured or killed.  He seriously abridged his own rights by his own actions.

 

While I would also prefer that the perpetrator had not had access to a rifle to begin with, the sword and machete are quite enough, in my view. to justify lethal force against him, especially when he has already threatened civilians and is now charging the police.  His rights come far behind all others involved in the scenario, at least in my view.

 

3 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

To be fair, even tasers carry a decent level of risk.  More than a few cases of taser-related deaths.  IIRC many jurisdictions now have tighter guidelines on taser use(when, how many times, etc.).  

I wonder about the necessity of most traffic stops in an era of dashboard cameras and the internet.  Short of someone driving recklessly, you can scan someone's plate, look up their info and record, and conceivably digitally cite them and send notice via text message or email.  I also wonder whether officers really need to walk around "strapped" in all circumstances.  

 

"Reduced risk" options are not "no risk options".  The officer could club a guy with a baton and severely injure or kill him.  We know that concussions have serious repercussions.  Violence is risky, and would ideally be avoided, but the real world often falls well short of "ideal".

 

To the traffic stop, if the license plate is the evidence, how do we prove who was driving the car?  We use photo radar a lot here, but the tradeoff is that the only penalty is a fine.  Demerits cannot be issued as it cannot be clearly demonstrated who the driver was.

 

Like Pattern Ghost, I would rather the police were armed and did not need to be than that they were not, and did need to be.  I would want to see a massive reduction of dangerous weapons in the hands of non-police before I would consider reducing their own access to weapons.  If two officers responding to a domestic dispute from a noise complain see Joe SixPack brandishing a knife and threatening his spouse, kids or a neighbour, I'd rather Joe takes a bullet than that his victims' safety is jeopardized.  My priority is victims' rights well over criminals' rights.

 

Assuming Joe SixPack is brought down with non-lethal force, that one incident should be enough that he is never entitled to acquire a firearm, or any other item whose sole, or even primary, use is a weapon.  One strike, you're out.  It should be considerably harder for him to ever recover his Second Amendment rights than for someone convicted of drunk driving to get re-licensed to drive.

 

BTW, like Pattern Ghost, I am curious as to your area of practice in law.

 

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

I don't know if anyone's really arguing whether cops ought to be permitted to carry guns.  Of course they should, except maybe in St. Louis.

 

Cvilian gun ownership, on the other hand, largely serves no purpose and often is counterproductive.  People with guns in their homes are more likely to die by gunfire.  Instances of defensive firearm usage are exceedingly rare compared to criminal usage.  Gun owners may think they have a right to defend themselves with guns, but in reality all they're doing is endangering themselves and the people that live with them.  And making it easier for bad guys to arm themselves.

 

I would really like to see a study by an objective, non-partisan group not affiliated with the pro- or anti-gun lobby assess the benefits and costs of defensive use of firearms.  My gut feel is that people with ready access to guns in the US are no safer than those with more restricted access to guns in countries with greater gun control regulations.  However, "when your gut talks to you, what does it use for a mouth?"  I would rather rely on expert advice than gut feel, and I would MUCH rather our laws were based on expert analysis than the political agenda of the day.

I'm OK with certain levels of restriction, though not as many as you'd probably like. For instance:

 

I think it'd be great if training in gun safety, marksmanship, and local use of force laws were mandatory . . . but only if the government funded that training. They could raise the money with a very small tax on firearms, firearms parts, ammo and accessories. Less than a 1% tax could probably cover it.

 

This is something I would support.  Funding it with a tax as you suggest makes it a "user pay" system, not a "general revenue funded" measure, which I believe is appropriate (much like gas taxes used to fund road maintenance).

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think it'd be great if the government partnered with the (don't freak out) NRA and developed a free online safety and legal course for new gun owners and made it mandatory to include links to said course with every firearms purchase. Yeah, I know I said NRA, but they do already have decent material available, and it'd be nice to see them do something useful for a change.

 

Sounds like leveraging expertise to me - always a good idea.  It also puts some onus back on the NRA - contribute to actively reducing the risks, not just rhetoric, to support your preferences.

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think that safe storage incentives are a good thing. For example, my state doesn't charge sales tax on gun safes.

 

Here, I would go further - safe storage should be mandatory, not optional.  I would not, however, extend the "training tax" to such storage devices.

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I think that no state should put licensing requirements or any other requirements on a firearm that's not being carried outside of the home or is only used outside the home for other legal activities (hunting, taking to train,  sporting use, etc. -- those things usually exempted by law anyway even where guns aren't legal to carry outside the home).

 

Once you move outside the home with a firearm, then the impact you have on the rights of others skyrockets. Here, I'm fine with training and background check requirements, and in passing those costs to the gun owner directly, so long as they aren't punitive. I don't, however, believe that the state requiring a reason to carry passes constitutional muster.

 

Here, my bias is to greater restriction, but I do not need to contend with 2nd amendment rights.  I agree restrictions for general "outside the home" carrying should be significantly greater, and should be funded by the gun user, not general revenue.  I would favour "reason to carry", but as long as we are prepared to accept self-defense as a reason, it seems like it would be a rubber stamped formality serving no purpose, even ignoring any constitutional issue.  Loss of right to carry for past violent offenses, mental health issues, uttering threats, past negligence in firearm storage or use, etc. would likely be the better approach - target the exceptions who merit restrictions, not those who are responsible.

 

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm OK with banning the carry of long arms outside the home, aside from the usual hunting and sporting use exemptions. I'm perfectly fine if morons who take their ARs to the park to "educate" the public on gun rights were thoroughly stifled. I don't think this one would have any real impact on mass shootings with rifles, aside from being automatic probable cause to stop someone, I just don't like morons running around in public with rifles.

 

As I said before, I'm OK with magazine capacity restrictions on centerfire rifle caliber weapons. I'm not OK with banning AR15 rifles, or other rifles based on their cosmetic or ergonomic features. Canada's model for long guns (aside from the stringent requirements to even own a firearm) might not be too bad of a one to adopt in the US, though doing so would involve a confiscation buyback.

 

Canada has had a variety of approaches to deal with long guns, some more successful than others.  Again, reliance on expert, rather than popular, opinion would be beneficial on both sides of our border.  I see no reason anyone should need to carry such a weapon outside of the exceptions you note.

[ScottishFox]

17 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I would really like to see a study by an objective, non-partisan group not affiliated with the pro- or anti-gun lobby assess the benefits and costs of defensive use of firearms.  My gut feel is that people with ready access to guns in the US are no safer than those with more restricted access to guns in countries with greater gun control regulations.  However, "when your gut talks to you, what does it use for a mouth?"  I would rather rely on expert advice than gut feel, and I would MUCH rather our laws were based on expert analysis than the political agenda of the day.

 

The CDC has done this at least twice that I know of and while the estimate is VERY rangey (500k to 3 million) the number of defensive gun uses is higher than the number of criminal gun uses.  Additionally, more than 3 out of 4 times a defensive gun use does not involve firing the gun.  Very often just presenting the gun is enough to make the criminal abandon their attempt to rob/harm the gun owner.

 

The article below is pretty well balanced and indicates some of the issues involved with gathering the data.

 

Still, concealed carry permits have gone up dramatically since the 90s and the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders is extremely low.  Here in Texas the crime rate of concealed carry permit holders is lower than that of police officers.

Roughly 4.2% of people in Texas have concealed carry permits.

Texas concealed carry conviction rate:  0.3985%

 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2018.pdf

 

 

In particular, a 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

[Pattern Ghost]

37 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Here, I would go further - safe storage should be mandatory, not optional. 

 

The reason I don't support safe storage laws is that they're typically very poorly written. Something that was actually reasonable, I'd possibly be OK with. The ones I've seen so far have been designed to simply be punitive and spiteful.

[Hermit]

17 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

The reason I don't support safe storage laws is that they're typically very poorly written. Something that was actually reasonable, I'd possibly be OK with. The ones I've seen so far have been designed to simply be punitive and spiteful.

 

Yeah, the laws here you have to keep the gun disassembled even in locked storage  are... well, if one was counting on self defense, that surely makes it less likely to have it in time.