Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4382|foggy bottom
im a political scientist
Tu Stultus Es
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4708

NJ state laws are pretty silly when it comes to what you can and cannot have. You can have a SKS here but it has to have an unattachable clip. You can have a WASR if it has a fixed stock and no flash suppressor or bayonet. They both are semiauto and fire 7.62, why does the SKS need to have a fixed clip? And why can't I have a bayonet?
13rin
Member
+977|5602

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

UN small arms treaty uproar is retarded.  Weren't you a political science major?  Didn't you learn that the only way any rights given to US citizens through an amendment could be taken away is by repealing that amendment by passing a new one?
I think the UN small arms treaty is retarded.  At this point the process is irrelevant, although more simply put treaties do not supersede the Constitution.  The point is that Hildo is signing it.  And Bammer is on-board.   That is what I find more outrageous.  I guess that whole "oath of office" that they swore (bammer took it twice) was all just for show.  These people could give a rats ass about the Constitution.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|5837|US

Macbeth wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I don't like the idea of someone 'standing their ground' in a state like NJ where there are 1200 people per square mile or like NYC where there are 27000 people per square mile.
So, you can only defend yourself with lethal force without a legal duty to retreat in states with low population densities?
You can defend yourself with lethal force as long as you do not use a firearm in a place other than your home. It's painfully obvious that is what I meant.
Yes, I was nit-picking a bit.  "Stand Your Ground" laws usually only deal with the application of lethal force, and are not specific on the tools used (if any).

Why do you think it should be legal for people to defend themselves with guns in some places but not in others.  Let me make it real specific.  Why should a person at a Wal-mart in Val Verde County TX (population density 14/sq.mi) be allowed to shoot an attacker in self-defense, and a person at a Wal-mart in Cook County, IL (population density 5,686) not be allowed to do so?
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4708

Because in less populated places less uninvolved people are likely to get hurt. There is also a lower expectation of law enforcement protection. I know less populated places have larger Walmarts since they are county based yadda yadda. The likihood of a shoot out happening at Walmart in some place or another Texas is much less likely than someone or their property getting damaged in a shoot out in NYC.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|5837|US
You are using a VERY weak form of interest balancing to restrict a fundamental right.   That is where I have a problem. 
Law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals anywhere.  The likelihood of a violent crime occurring should not govern when people have the option to have defensive tools.  Violent crime is hard to predict very accurately.  As for the risk of innocents being hurt, uh, someone is already defending their life.  Do they get no consideration as compared to Bob or his Audi half a block away?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2012-07-13 18:11:27)

Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5797|Canberra, AUS

Macbeth wrote:

People who quote Orwell are usually the type of people who only read 1984 and Animal farm and think that makes them political experts. They are the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories and think the government is or is about to trounce on their rights every second of the day. They also will endlessly bitch about republicans. Orwell only seems deep until you start reading real modern political science books and take some classes on the subject. After that you realize he hasn't been relevant since the 50's.
srs question, how much orwell have you read? because to me it looks like all you've read is 1984 and animal farm
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4382|foggy bottom
hes right though
Tu Stultus Es
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|5620

Spark wrote:

srs question, how much orwell have you read? because to me it looks like all you've read is 1984 and animal farm
what, there's more?
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|4596|Ventura, California

Ty wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

There was a story the other day in the paper about a 14 year old that shot and killed an intruder while defending his 3 little siblings upstairs. Shit like that is why we need to arm the just. What could have happened to the kid and his 3 brothers and sisters warrants his possession of a firearm. What was he going to do, call the cops?
Yes I remember a similar story not too long ago of a woman who was barricaded herself in her bedroom and had a shotgun. She was on the phone to the police as the bad guy was breaking in and asked if she should shoot him. The police officer said she should do whatever she felt had to do. So she filled the bastard's chest with buckshot. A good example of why firearm ownership is a good thing. Search for "person shoots intruder' and I'm sure there's a large number of stories to back this up.
Every situation you mentioned could have been prevented from more responsibility from the gun owners. They didn't make their weapons inaccessible to others.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|5897|Noizyland

Well obviously. Wouldn't it be nice if only the responsible had guns.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,757|5229|eXtreme to the maX
Or if the people who had guns were required to be responsible on penalty of losing their guns.

Which, realistically, is going to work out best?
#Freed Britney !
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4382|foggy bottom
felons cant own or even touch a firearm
Tu Stultus Es
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|5804|Disaster Free Zone
irresponsible =/= felon

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Although in many cases it should
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England
So how would you guys format the responsibility test?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4382|foggy bottom

DrunkFace wrote:

irresponsible =/= felon

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Although in many cases it should
i would think being convicted of  felony is a good indicator of being irresponsible
Tu Stultus Es
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,757|5229|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

So how would you guys format the responsibility test?
No criminal record, no history of mental health problems, secure storage in place, part of a club and be able to find two or so responsible/professional people prepared to provide character references.
#Freed Britney !
krazed
Admiral of the Bathtub
+619|5903|Great Brown North

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

So how would you guys format the responsibility test?
No criminal record, no history of mental health problems, secure storage in place, part of a club and be able to find two or so responsible/professional people prepared to provide character references.
so... exactly like canada
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|5837|US
No one can be a responsible shooter without paying money to join a club...
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,757|5229|eXtreme to the maX
Its a way to find out if they really want to be a shooter or just sit in their basement stroking their mail-order carbine TBH
#Freed Britney !
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England
All you're doing is raising the barrier to entry by making it more expensive to own a weapon (legally). The first two are already in place here, and they don't really mean anything. The club certainly means absolutely nothing. And even if the storage space was in place, are you going to put gps monitors on all weapons to prove they are locked away?

Here's all you need:
Criminal record check (useless really, but whatever)
Mental health check (i dunno why a known sociopath would be wandering the streets, but whatever)
Cool down period for handgun purchases (this I believe strongly in, because it works)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|5897|Noizyland

Jay wrote:

So how would you guys format the responsibility test?
Bugger'd if I know. Probably steal it from another country.

I think first though the US needs to get rid of the ridiculous notion that gun ownership is a right. It shouldn't be a right or at very least it shouldn't be treated as one. It is a privilege. You're given responsibility when you are given a deadly weapon, I don't think this is a value that's promoted much in the notion that everyone has the right to own a firearm. Abiding by a few rules isn't an affront on freedom, it's part of being a responsible person.

The rules aren't hard to follow. Even the NRA has a key one that I think is ignored a great deal more than it should be. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. I was taught that there were seven rules of firearm safety. I had to demonstrate that I knew and understood them in a simple test I had to take as part of getting my firearms licence.

1. Treat every firearm as loaded.
You have a device that is designed to kill, treat it with a little respect. As part of the army I've seen countless UDs, a number of them from people who could have sworn they didn't have a round in the chamber and were pulling the trigger as a part of taking their weapons apart for cleaning. People get careless. Not something that should happen around firearms.

2. Always point firearms in a safe direction.
A no brainer. Most of the aforementioned UDs didn't end up being any worse than they were because the careless people who forgot rule #1 at least had the sense to abide by rule #2.

3. Load a firearm only when ready to fire.
Like I said, even the NRA promotes this one. I can't understand why people get a feeling of safety from knowing they have a loaded firearm in their house. If you're in a position where you simply must have an immediately usable firearm you're probably not in a position where you'd be able to perform any heroics anyway.

4. Identify your target beyond all doubt.
Mostly for hunters. Pretty much all firearm-related deaths in New Zealand are from people who get excited and forget rule #4. Most recently a hunter shot a young school teacher who was brushing her teeth while camping. He'll have to live with that for the rest of his life, knowing that the temporary thrill of killing a deer was worth not making damn sure he knew what he was shooting at.

5. Check your firing zone.
Identifying your target is one key thing, knowing what you may hit if you miss is another. As a kid my Dad shot his own best mate, (thankfully only in the arse with a bit of buckshot,) because he carelessly fired at a rabbit without considering what was in his firing zone.

6. Store firearms and ammunition safely.
Hiding a weapon is not safely. As a kid it didn't take me long while exploring in my house to come across my Dad's shotgun. Of course I picked it up and played with it too, a young kid is bound to. But just leaving it around, even unloaded, for someone to find is irresponsible. A locked rack or safe is the only sensible option. It keeps control of the firearm in the hands of the responsible owner. Keeps kids from playing with them, keeps anyone from having access to them to cause harm to themselves or someone else and prevents burglars from stealing them and increasing the number of guns in the hands of irresponsible people.

7. Avoid alcohol or drugs when handling firearms
I don't need to explain this do I?

The rules are good and they're pretty common sense rules really. I think what's lacking is many cases is the need for a firearm owner to know that as a firearm owner it is their duty to abide by these rules. They're not a vague suggestion, people need to know and understand them and they need to show that they know and understand them. If I could at 16 it's not too much to suggest that legal adults do to. And if they can't they should not be allowed to own a gun until they do.

There are enough bad people out there who mean to do others harm. This is not helped if you have a whole bunch of other people who don't mean to do others harm but do anyway because of their own stupidity or carelessness.

Jay wrote:

Here's all you need:
Criminal record check (useless really, but whatever)
Mental health check (i dunno why a known sociopath would be wandering the streets, but whatever)
Cool down period for handgun purchases (this I believe strongly in, because it works)
I agree with you about the club thing. I don't think anything is gained by making sure people shoot their weapons. However I don't think your three-stage check is going to do it. I don't disagree with what it does and think it should be part of the process, (except number three maybe,) but someone doesn't need to have an existing criminal record to mean to harm others and someone doesn't need to be classified as mentally unhealthy to be stupid or careless. As to the cool-down period... I've never seen too much point. I'm not against it, I think it adds some weight to the notion that gun ownership is a privilege and if you want a firearm you need to show yourself willing to follow the correct processes. It's worth it for the crimes it does prevent but I don't think it is particularly effective at keeping firearms from people who shouldn't have them.

See my problem is that none of those three points require a person to show that they understand the responsibilities associated with owning a firearm. So if you're a known criminal and/or have mental health problems then no gun for you but for everyone else regardless of intelligence or responsibility it's fair go? I don't think so.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England
Ok, and? Those are very good instructions to follow, but it's not like you can force people to adhere to them. Everyone has to take a written and road test in order to gain a driver's license here. It doesn't preclude a lot of people from being terrible, irresponsible drivers. And those terrible drivers kill way more people than gun owners do.

Last edited by Jay (2012-07-15 06:12:37)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|5897|Noizyland

Jay wrote:

Ok, and? Those are very good instructions to follow, but it's not like you can force people to adhere to them. Everyone has to take a written and road test in order to gain a driver's license here. It doesn't preclude a lot of people from being terrible, irresponsible drivers. And those terrible drivers kill way more people than gun owners do.
But don't you agree that it is appropriate for people to be taught that there are rules and they should follow them? That they should show that they at least have the minimum knowledge and understanding to be trusted with a car or a gun? The understanding of these rules doesn't prevent all gun harm here either, that doesn't mean they're worthless. Just like my criticism of your three steps. What they do may not be enough but there is a significant benefit in having them.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4481|London, England

Ty wrote:

Jay wrote:

Ok, and? Those are very good instructions to follow, but it's not like you can force people to adhere to them. Everyone has to take a written and road test in order to gain a driver's license here. It doesn't preclude a lot of people from being terrible, irresponsible drivers. And those terrible drivers kill way more people than gun owners do.
But don't you agree that it is appropriate for people to be taught that there are rules and they should follow them? That they should show that they at least have the minimum knowledge and understanding to be trusted with a car or a gun? The understanding of these rules doesn't prevent all gun harm here either, that doesn't mean they're worthless. Just like my criticism of your three steps. What they do may not be enough but there is a significant benefit in having them.
Rules are less than worthless if they are unenforceable. They become scofflaws and undermine actually legitimate rules.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard