Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

I was in our local Rural King store today and there was a large crowd around the gun sales area. I talked to the one behind the showcase of arms and he said it has been crazy the last few days with sales. I think we know why this is.

[PhaelixWW]

the rules restricting the use of public funds isnt blocking funding direct funding, but the use of federal data, which making other state of private studies as you put it "less comprehensive"

That's not at all what's going on...

awesome strawman there, nothing in my statement suggests "all firearm violence is because of the Republican party" just the growth of the problem because of their intransigence is what im blaming them for

If you're claiming that they're solely responsible for the growth, then you're basically saying that they're the only thing that can possibly affect the rise and fall of homicide rates, which kinda says the same thing. Unless you're not trying to talk "causal" responsibility, but instead "ethical" responsibility, which, I mean... good luck with that. That'd be the same "Republicans BAD!" argument I talked about.

you raised a stink cause a poster pointed out one of the things that could be done to curb the problem, and again, who was stopping even that from being done and you whined that it was being political.

Lol at your hilariously peurile use of "raised a stink" and "whined". The poster in question has done exactly what I said: made everything a simple political party affiliation issue instead of what it is: a much more complicated and convoluted issue. And no, he didn't point out what could be done, he simply blamed a political party for things not being done. He offers no proof, justification, or rational thought, just blame. If the issue is a lack of bipartisan lawmaking, then he is definitely a part of the problem, not the solution.

[Draco-Onis]

Good for them, what the FUCK does that have to do with a comprehensive mental health bill that should have bipartisan support?

Bipartisan? republicans have gutted mental health programs and health care in general, you asked about changes to immigration and other bills. Democrats have put bills forward on both problems Trump and republicans have sunk them.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, you always seem to want to make this about nothing more than party politics. I mean, doesn't that ever get tiring? Why not try and talk the actual subject?

Facts are tiring for you? There's no way around it republicans are blocking everything no matter how you cut it all this talk about mental health, immigration etc is just that talk.

[eschatological]

If you're going to attempt to use rational thinking, at least do it right.

So being prepared for an event that happens ~25k per year can only be due to irrational fear, but saying "we have to do something now!" for an event that happens ~15k per year is, what, rational prudence?

And that's only 25k times per year. That means that we're really talking about ~1.5 million times in the average adult lifetime. 1.5 million incidents compared to 130 million households. Suddenly you're not talking about "a hugely insignificant statistical reality".

There are 14k gun homicides a year. There are 30k gun deaths a year. There are 100k gun injuries a year intentionally caused (not accidental). The problem of violence is endemic. Our homicide rate is way higher than other developed countries. So is our violent crime rate. And your use of statistics are appalling. You still have only a 0.65% chance to be killed in a home invasion every year (of all home invasions, not in general), it doesn't add up cumulatively otherwise 90 year olds or something would all eventually just be killed by home invaders.

Of course. There is a big difference between 3 million and 266k. And no, you are not reading or calculating it correctly. Read the article again, maybe you will get it next time. But lets pretend it is 9% of 266k for your sake. That is still a lot more people getting seriously hurt ( over 2000 ) than your 100 - 200 you want to use to imply it is a much lower chance.

I never implied 100-200 was the number of those seriously hurt. I directly stated that's probably the number of homicides. Common sense would actually imply that that's a subset of those who got seriously hurt.

Keep in mind, the law gives me the right to use deadly force to defend myself, not only from death, but also serous bodily harm. That is exactly how it is worded in the law here in Ohio. Not sure about where you live.

The law of self-defense requires you to use *proportionate* force in response to danger, and in many states you have to attempt to flee in public (and likewise you cannot respond if the other person flees). In almost all states, you cannot shoot someone if they punch you. This changes somewhat in the home, but the point is that you don't have carte blanche to shoot people who attack you in most of the country. There is no right to deadly force in most states, to defend yourself, UNLESS YOU YOURSELF have a *reasonable* fear of death yourself. And even in the states that allow deadly force in the home, it's a trend which has started in the past 20 years because of idiotic fearmongering by the GOP. Which means, unless a burglar has a weapon on him - you can't draw down on him. BTW, if he does have weapon, sure, go for it, I'm not against that and I don't think most liberals are. But there are countless cases of people shooting intruders in their home who've been shown to be unjustified because the guy was "just" there to rob them, and not hurt them.

So, to recap: 1) you don't have a right to every weapon, as even Heller (which overturned a ban) pointed out, and 2) you don't have a right to deadly force as self-defense unless you reasonably believe the intruder intends to cause you serious bodily harm or death. Point #2 is called Justifiable Homicide in self-defense, and it is distinct from the Castle Doctrine, which is an old school common law principle which would allow you to shoot someone for trespassing.

Na, It is not a myth. But you can choose to believe that if you want. Maybe the best thing is for you to choose how you want to be defend yourself or not and let others do the same, acting within the law and the Constitution. And the only justification I need to carry one for self defense is I have a Constitutional right to.

I mean, this is simply about how you interpret the 2nd Amendment. For years there was a much stricter reading of it, suggesting the "well-regulated militia" bit to be the controlling phrase. My constitutional law professor would often make the argument that the reason behind the Amendment (protection from tyranny from the government) was outdated, and should be interpreted through a modern lens - IE, because there's no reasonable belief in a tyrannical U.S. government any more, the 2nd's need for well-regulated civilian militias is outdated. He'd always point to the 3rd Amendment during this argument - an on-its-face outdated Amendment that literally does not apply any more, to show that the Founders had some of these amendments to protect a fledgling, nascent democracy recently freed from monarchy (and which only had 13 colonies, btw), and didn't intend for them to be unassailable rights for the rest of time. Hell, Jefferson wanted to amend the Constitution every 20 years or so.

[Theodarzna]

because the actual subject is only a continually growing issue because of the Republicans blocking anything
like funding for just gathering data on the subject

but sure, lets not talk about that(wait, I thought not talking about things for political reasons was bad too.)

What is the data for?

Because given that it is a constitutional and legal right to own a firearm, it just feels like fishing for taxpayer grants to argue why peoples rights should be infringed.

[Dacien]

This popped up and I thought it was thought-provoking: Of 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Were Fatherless

It's from a year ago so I don't know how that's skewed, but that's certainly food for thought.

[Ghostpanther]

There are 14k gun homicides a year. There are 30k gun deaths a year. There are 100k gun injuries a year intentionally caused (not accidental). The problem of violence is endemic. Our homicide rate is way higher than other developed countries. So is our violent crime rate. And your use of statistics are appalling. You still have only a 0.65% chance to be killed in a home invasion every year (of all home invasions, not in general), it doesn't add up cumulatively otherwise 90 year olds or something would all eventually just be killed by home invaders.



I never implied 100-200 was the number of those seriously hurt. I directly stated that's probably the number of homicides. Common sense would actually imply that that's a subset of those who got seriously hurt.



The law of self-defense requires you to use *proportionate* force in response to danger, and in many states you have to attempt to flee in public (and likewise you cannot respond if the other person flees). In almost all states, you cannot shoot someone if they punch you. This changes somewhat in the home, but the point is that you don't have carte blanche to shoot people who attack you in most of the country. There is no right to deadly force in most states, to defend yourself, UNLESS YOU YOURSELF have a *reasonable* fear of death yourself. And even in the states that allow deadly force in the home, it's a trend which has started in the past 20 years because of idiotic fearmongering by the GOP. Which means, unless a burglar has a weapon on him - you can't draw down on him. BTW, if he does have weapon, sure, go for it, I'm not against that and I don't think most liberals are. But there are countless cases of people shooting intruders in their home who've been shown to be unjustified because the guy was "just" there to rob them, and not hurt them.

So, to recap: 1) you don't have a right to every weapon, as even Heller (which overturned a ban) pointed out, and 2) you don't have a right to deadly force as self-defense unless you reasonably believe the intruder intends to cause you serious bodily harm or death. Point #2 is called Justifiable Homicide in self-defense, and it is distinct from the Castle Doctrine, which is an old school common law principle which would allow you to shoot someone for trespassing.



I mean, this is simply about how you interpret the 2nd Amendment. For years there was a much stricter reading of it, suggesting the "well-regulated militia" bit to be the controlling phrase. My constitutional law professor would often make the argument that the reason behind the Amendment (protection from tyranny from the government) was outdated, and should be interpreted through a modern lens - IE, because there's no reasonable belief in a tyrannical U.S. government any more, the 2nd's need for well-regulated civilian militias is outdated. He'd always point to the 3rd Amendment during this argument - an on-its-face outdated Amendment that literally does not apply any more, to show that the Founders had some of these amendments to protect a fledgling, nascent democracy recently freed from monarchy (and which only had 13 colonies, btw), and didn't intend for them to be unassailable rights for the rest of time. Hell, Jefferson wanted to amend the Constitution every 20 years or so.

Yes, there are countless cases of home intruders being shot for breaking into a home. And you fail to understand the laws in many states when it comes to the Castle Doctrine. In Ohio, a home owner has the right to assume someone breaking into their home is armed and means them harm. Take the time to see if they are? That can get you killed. We have the right to use deadly force in such cases. It also extends to one's vehicle.

Here is a good video of explaining the application of the Castle Doctrine law in Ohio. But one needs to know, even the Castle laws can vary according to the state they live in. One critical thing for any responsible gun owner to know, is the laws of their states and other states they may visit.



Concerning out in the public, a simple slap at someone does not give you the right to use deadly force. But a punch? Maybe, depends on the situation and how forceful the hit is. If you try to slug a 85 year old woman as a young adult? She has the right to defend herself with deadly force. We do have the need to retreat here in my state if we are threatened. If it is reasonably available. But there are several states with Stand your Ground laws, which do not require that. Such as Indiana and Florida, to mention a couple.

It is not just my interpretation, but the Supreme Court's. And the state legislature in Ohio. I do not care what laws they have in New York. I would only care if I was going there. And I do not care what your law professor would think ether. Jefferson was a man. A smart man and worthy of study. Does not mean he was perfect however.

At this point, we may get into a repeat of the same old arguments. Any US citizen has the right to petition their government representatives for changes they want. But I am glad the Constitution was set up so as not to be easily changed based on the emotional whims of the public. Meanwhile in my home state and all the ones surrounding it, I have the right to keep and carry firearms for self protection and that is what really matters for myself.

- - - Updated - - -

This popped up and I thought it was thought-provoking: Of 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Were Fatherless

It's from a year ago so I don't know how that's skewed, but that's certainly food for thought.

I think it plays a major role. Not just with mass shooters, but criminals in general. I liked when a reporter talking to Denzil Washington, asking him a question about why so many are involved in drugs/gangs and are incarcerated, esp. minorities, is the system to blame? And he did not get the answer he wanted. Denzil said, " Do not blame the system, it starts in the home. If you have no father to help you get the right role model to follow, then your father will become what you are mostly around. Gang and drug leaders."

[zenkai]

I think it plays a major role. Not just with mass shooters, but criminals in general. I liked when a reporter talking to Denzil Washington, asking him a question about why so many are involved in drugs/gangs and are incarcerated, esp. minorities, is the system to blame? And he did not get the answer he wanted. Denzil said, " Do not blame the system, it starts in the home. If you have no father to help you get the right role model to follow, then your father will become what you are mostly around. Gang and drug leaders."

Yeah, I would agree most crazy people did not have a stable home environment.

[PhaelixWW]

And your use of statistics are appalling. You still have only a 0.65% chance to be killed in a home invasion every year (of all home invasions, not in general), it doesn't add up cumulatively otherwise 90 year olds or something would all eventually just be killed by home invaders.

My understanding of statistics is just fine, thanks. And no, you wouldn't add the chance of being killed in a home invasion as a percentage of total home invasions cumulatively because it's already only representative of a subset, not the whole; that 90 year old person is not going to be in one home invasion every year.

What I was talking about, in probability, is shown as 1-(1-p)^k, where p is the probability of the event (25k home invasions with serious injury divided by 130m total households) and k is the number of iterations (years between adulthood [18] and average life expectancy [78]), which would be 1-(1-25/130000)^60 = 0.0115, or 1.15%. Instead, I used the lifetime probability, which would be 1-(1-(25x60)/130000)^1, which is 1-(1-1500/130000), which is 1-1+1500/130000, which is 1500/130000 = 0.0115, or 1.15%.

While those two are not technically the same, they are a close enough approximation for the purpose of the argument. Especially considering that the likelihood of being seriously injured in a home invasion is not a static one-iteration-per-year check anyway.

[Maneo]

This popped up and I thought it was thought-provoking: Of 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Were Fatherless

It's from a year ago so I don't know how that's skewed, but that's certainly food for thought.

Want to be more disturbed when you start doing research into serial killers, a lot of why they are they way they are can be traced back to the mother.

For sure there is toxic masculinity, but there also needs to be a discussion about toxic femininity, or just toxic humanity in general. At least that is my opinion.

But in response to you post, it isn't a surprise honestly. Most crime can be tied to the break up of the family.

[Crispin]

Just have a referendum on this already. America being so democratic, should honestly let the population vote on this century old 2nd amendment.

[Maneo]

Just have a referendum on this already. America being so democratic, should honestly let the population vote on this century old 2nd amendment.

More difficult then that to alter a constitutional right.

Thankfully

[Ghostpanther]

Just have a referendum on this already. America being so democratic, should honestly let the population vote on this century old 2nd amendment.

The US is a Republic, made up of a Union of Democratic States. What you are proposing is never going to happen unless there is a amendment of the Constitution, which to do that, is something not based on a national popular vote. Having a referendum wouldn't do jack shit. If it was based just on the populace voting for it.

[Stormdash]

The US is a Republic, made up of a Union of Democratic States. What you are proposing is never going to happen unless there is a amendment of the Constitution, which to do that, is something not based on a national popular vote. Having a referendum wouldn't do jack shit. If it was based just on the populace voting for it.

There will never, ever, ever, ever be 38 states with legislatures willing to ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

But let's be honest, this spineless worms never actually bother to propose repeal. Their real agenda is to lie and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't mean that which its language plainly says.

[Theodarzna]

There will never, ever, ever, ever be 38 states with legislatures willing to ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

But let's be honest, this spineless worms never actually bother to propose repeal. Their real agenda is to lie and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't mean that which its language plainly says.

Their real agenda is based on the true facts of the US Government. The actual constitution really doesn't mean jack and can be interpreted away or administratively dictated away. We have Constitutional Law, a Living Document constitution which is to say we have case precedent and rule by judges and the federal beaurocracy.

Right now its a push for red flag laws, anything to get at the guns. Because obviously there will always be another shooting to be sad about and thus there will be a ginned up call for another round of restrictions until the 2nd amendment is itself meaningless; much like the 1st and pretty much every amendment.

[Draco-Onis]

There will never, ever, ever, ever be 38 states with legislatures willing to ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you also have stock tips? I mean you obviously have the power to see centuries into the future since you know what future generations will never ever ever ever do.

[Ghostpanther]

There will never, ever, ever, ever be 38 states with legislatures willing to ratify repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

But let's be honest, this spineless worms never actually bother to propose repeal. Their real agenda is to lie and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't mean that which its language plainly says.

I know. But some posters just do not understand how the process works for amending the Constitution. I am glad it was set up like it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Their real agenda is based on the true facts of the US Government. The actual constitution really doesn't mean jack and can be interpreted away or administratively dictated away. We have Constitutional Law, a Living Document constitution which is to say we have case precedent and rule by judges and the federal beaurocracy.

Right now its a push for red flag laws, anything to get at the guns. Because obviously there will always be another shooting to be sad about and thus there will be a ginned up call for another round of restrictions until the 2nd amendment is itself meaningless; much like the 1st and pretty much every amendment.

There is to some extent when it comes to the Second Amendment, already what you are referring to happening. Such as in New York. Need a reason to get a carry conceal handgun license there besides a Constitutional right. Which is a direct violation. The one law they have about taking a firearm across state lines, is being appealed to the Supreme Court. But the other needs to be also. Such a law was challenged in which DC had about issuing conceal carry licenses and a Federal Judge ruled it was Unconstitutional.

[petej0]

Their real agenda is based on the true facts of the US Government. The actual constitution really doesn't mean jack and can be interpreted away or administratively dictated away. We have Constitutional Law, a Living Document constitution which is to say we have case precedent and rule by judges and the federal beaurocracy.

Right now its a push for red flag laws, anything to get at the guns. Because obviously there will always be another shooting to be sad about and thus there will be a ginned up call for another round of restrictions until the 2nd amendment is itself meaningless; much like the 1st and pretty much every amendment.

Red flag laws will fail badly. You will have people who will go under ground, you will have people who will avoid seeking help.

There are many, many questions that need to be answered before we even pass such legislation, like:

What if the person flagged doesnt have a firearm? Do we confiscate other items that can be used as weapons?

What if the person has children? If there is credible danger should we remove the children as well?

If they have a custody agreement does that get suspended?

What actions would be considered "red flagged" and are they objective or subjective?

How do we handle the increased case load on enforcement officers? You know, the officers that we already think cant perform their jobs properly?

What is the process for turning over the firearm and what happens when the person refuses?

What is the process for the person to get their firearms back? Currently people who have had their property taken through civil asset forfeiture have to jump through all kinds of hurdles to get their property back (if they get their property back) after they have been exonerated.

[Ghostpanther]

Red flag laws will fail badly. You will have people who will go under ground, you will have people who will avoid seeking help.

There are many, many questions that need to be answered before we even pass such legislation, like:

What if the person flagged doesnt have a firearm? Do we confiscate other items that can be used as weapons?

What if the person has children? If there is credible danger should we remove the children as well?

If they have a custody agreement does that get suspended?

What actions would be considered "red flagged" and are they objective or subjective?

How do we handle the increased case load on enforcement officers? You know, the officers that we already think cant perform their jobs properly?

What is the process for turning over the firearm and what happens when the person refuses?

What is the process for the person to get their firearms back? Currently people who have had their property taken through civil asset forfeiture have to jump through all kinds of hurdles to get their property back (if they get their property back) after they have been exonerated.

As will banning so called assault rifles. What are they going to do when the next mass shooter kills several people using only a handgun, like the highest school mass shooting death toll did at Virginia Tech? Ban magazines with over 10 rounds and then they might be faced with a shooter who has practiced changing magazine quickly and it makes no difference at all. Guess they would want to only allow single shot shotguns? :P

However, I am not against red flag laws if they are handled within the restrictions we have for due process.

[zenkai]

London needs knife control https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/uk/uk...ntl/index.html