Gun Control

[Seli]

On 1/24/2020 at 4:51 PM, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Gun control is a nonsensical pipe dream of authoritarians, many of whom don't even know how to properly handle a firearm. Each new iteration of CNC milling machines, 3D Printers and Plasma Cutting Tables is going to drive that home more and more because eventually you will have a relatively cheap way to produce your own firearms. The real losers will be the douchebags in the Military-Industrial Complex as their civilian market will mostly dry up. Eventually casting for cartridges will become widespread enough that ammo production will also begin to shift away from the big producers. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is why control makes sense actually. You get to slap all the responsibility, liability, fines on those who are careless.

Not storing your gun properly, not storing your ammunition properly; fine but you are responsible for all damages.

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

3 hours ago, Seli said:

This is why control makes sense actually. You get to slap all the responsibility, liability, fines on those who are careless.

Umm, gun owners are ALREADY liable when they're careless. Seriously, do you understand the term "Negligent Discharge"?

Quote

Not storing your gun properly, not storing your ammunition properly; fine but you are responsible for all damages.

Well, I don't have to store shit on my own property because its MY PROPERTY. But if someone actually STEALS my firearms/ammo, I'm no longer culpable for what happens with them. The douchebag that stole them is now responsible.

[TrueMetis]

Nah, we're talking about deadly weapons. If someone was capable of stealing them, you clearly didn't secure them well enough.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Umm, gun owners are ALREADY liable when they're careless. Seriously, do you understand the term "Negligent Discharge"?

Quote

In plenty instances no. 

If someone sells their gun to a violent felon at a private venue(for example a gun show), they are likely not face any legal retribution.

Even if their carelessness cost human life. I don’t think it’s unfair, to say giving your gun over to whomever without checking if they are allowed to even the thing you’re selling is careless. 

2 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Well, I don't have to store shit on my own property because its MY PROPERTY. But if someone actually STEALS my firearms/ammo, I'm no longer culpable for what happens with them. The douchebag that stole them is now responsible.

Yes, you are not legally required to follow any proper storage guidelines in regards to firearms in most states. Which is why so many legal gun-owners simply don’t. Which in turn leads to far more stories of children hurting themselves, or accidentally killing themselves, than stories of brave courageous gun-owners saving their family with their gun. 

Would you at least concede not properly storing your firearm would be careless? 

 

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Nah, we're talking about deadly weapons. If someone was capable of stealing them, you clearly didn't secure them well enough.

Not a fan of this particular line of reasoning.

Obviously there could be exceptions to this. 

The point is reasonable precautions should be shown to have been met.

 

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

Nah, we're talking about deadly weapons. If someone was capable of stealing them, you clearly didn't secure them well enough.

Bet you don't hold the government to that same standard. Fast & Furious ring a bell?

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If someone sells their gun to a violent felon at a private venue(for example a gun show), they are likely not face any legal retribution.

You've obviously never sold a firearm (or probably even bought one).

Quote

Even if their carelessness cost human life. I don’t think it’s unfair, to say giving your gun over to whomever without checking if they are allowed to even the thing you’re selling is unfair. 

Again, you've never purchased a firearm if you think this is remotely true. Giving a fireram to a known felon is a FELONY. Furthermore, the capability of producing firearms is a technology going on close to 800 years old now. Its impossible to control and any/all kinds of prohibitions to deal with these "problems" create all kinds of unintended consequences. Look up the War on Drugs and Alcohol Prohibition if you're unfamiliar with cases where the "cure" was 100x deadlier than the "crime".

Quote

Yes, you are not legally required to follow any proper storage guidelines in regards to firearms in most states. Which is why so many legal gun-owners simply don’t. Which in turn leads to far more stories of children hurting themselves, or accidentally killing themselves, than stories of brave courageous gun-owners saving their family with their gun. 

Would you at least concede not properly storing your firearm would be careless?

I dunno, maybe teach your kids not to point a firearm at anyone when they're old enough to understand "Don't touch this!"? Maybe be a better parent and make sure your crotch goblins aren't screwing around with your firearms? Its people who fear firearms and either don't own them or have never even handled one that are the danger to the rest of us. These are people for whom the phrase "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch" was invented.

And "storing" you firearm (I assume you mean in a safe or locked cabinet and the like) makes it useless for home defense when you maybe have seconds to respond to a life-threatening situation. And furthermore, I am only culpable for MY ACTIONS. This bullshit of collective punishment for the actions of dumbasses is properly considered (and recognized) as a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Why the fuck should I made into a criminal for actions that fall within my Natural Rights?

We USED to have a "civic virtue" in training with firearms when the Militiia System was still in effect. Nowadays, you say the word "militia" and the media has everyone screaming about "white supremacists" or other BS scare narratives to get the public whipped up into a good old fashioned moral panic.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Giving a fireram to a known felon is a FELONY.

"Known" is doing a lot of work here. The private sale exception requires no background check, and there's no way that you know who a felon is just by looking or talking to them. When Jerry Crawford privately sold several weapons to Josiah John Weiss, it was only luck that the ATF were surveilling the place and saw the sale, otherwise a man with multiple felonies would have gotten away with a number of guns. What happened to Crawford? Nothing at all. He was not charged with doing anything illegaly, because he was a private seller and had no responsibility for insuring that Crawford was not a felon or otherwise disallowed from possessing firearms.

 

ETA: Some states do have universal background check rules, and they are effective. It's why felons in New York who want guns will travel several states away to try and acquire one in a private sale.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Bet you don't hold the government to that same standard. Fast & Furious ring a bell?

.

.

This is nonsense.  By this standard we should all be free to commit genocide or seize property or build nuclear bombs.  

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Bet you don't hold the government to that same standard. Fast & Furious ring a bell?

You've obviously never sold a firearm (or probably even bought one).

Again, you've never purchased a firearm if you think this is remotely true. Giving a fireram to a known felon is a FELONY. Furthermore, the capability of producing firearms is a technology going on close to 800 years old now. Its impossible to control and any/all kinds of prohibitions to deal with these "problems" create all kinds of unintended consequences. Look up the War on Drugs and Alcohol Prohibition if you're unfamiliar with cases where the "cure" was 100x deadlier than the "crime".

I dunno, maybe teach your kids not to point a firearm at anyone when they're old enough to understand "Don't touch this!"? Maybe be a better parent and make sure your crotch goblins aren't screwing around with your firearms? Its people who fear firearms and either don't own them or have never even handled one that are the danger to the rest of us. These are people for whom the phrase "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch" was invented.

And "storing" you firearm (I assume you mean in a safe or locked cabinet and the like) makes it useless for home defense when you maybe have seconds to respond to a life-threatening situation. And furthermore, I am only culpable for MY ACTIONS. This bullshit of collective punishment for the actions of dumbasses is properly considered (and recognized) as a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Why the fuck should I made into a criminal for actions that fall within my Natural Rights?

We USED to have a "civic virtue" in training with firearms when the Militiia System was still in effect. Nowadays, you say the word "militia" and the media has everyone screaming about "white supremacists" or other BS scare narratives to get the public whipped up into a good old fashioned moral panic.

Brit here, so I don't understand these things.  But what about my natural rights to not be in the same place as a load of armed people?  and not to be shot by the police because they fear I might be carrying a gun?

 

 

But on to storing a firearm.   Ya store it when its not in your presence.    if its in the room you are in, maybe under your pillow (I think thats a dumb place for a loaded gun)  or your bedside cabinet.  I got no problem when your in your bedroom.    You wake up or leave, take the gun with you or lock it away.     If you are not home, does it matter if your gun is in the safe when burgled?    it may help stop your gun being stolen.

 

Other countries manage with sensible gun control.  these does not mean an outright ban, but a look at what is reasonable and maybe considering if its possible and could be applied.  It should not be about restricting responsible gun owners, but ensuring the non-responsible ones are a bit more responsible.

 

You say Natural rights?  just for one moment forget the 2nd amendment.  - gun ownership is not a automatic right in most of the world, thus can't be natural. 

 

I personally think some kind of mandatory gun safety course should be in place before anyone owns a gun.   I get this infringes on the 2nd amendment, but if that the case make it part of the school curriculum and insist home schooled are also taught.  in that way you should get most future gun owners fully aware how to safely use a and store a gun.

[BigFatCoward]

I'm sure there are some non dumb as fuck gun people out there. Why are they never the loud ones? 

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

The private sale exception requires no background check, and there's no way that you know who a felon is just by looking or talking to them.

Wow, let's just toss the whole concept of Mens Rea out the window while we're at it...

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is nonsense.  By this standard we should all be free to commit genocide or seize property or build nuclear bombs.  

If its illegal for ME to do it, then its (by any stretch of logic) illegal for the government to do it.

8 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

Brit here, so I don't understand these things.  But what about my natural rights to not be in the same place as a load of armed people?  and not to be shot by the police because they fear I might be carrying a gun?

Your rights end where someone else's begins. You have no right to prevent the self-defense of another person.

Quote

Ya store it when its not in your presence.

Most firearms are stored since you only keep 1 or 2 for self defense (most common home defense is a pump-action 12-guage shotgun and a pistol). Plenty of people have Conceal/Carry Permits, so they carry 1 or 2 on them at all time in a holster, concealed. 

Quote

Other countries manage with sensible gun control.  these does not mean an outright ban, but a look at what is reasonable and maybe considering if its possible and could be applied.  It should not be about restricting responsible gun owners, but ensuring the non-responsible ones are a bit more responsible.

"Reasonable gun control" is a bullshit euphemism dreamed up by authoritarians that want disarmament. Its a form of gaslighting gun owners with claims of "No one wants to take your guns!"

But hey, I'll give up my guns when the USGov and every state LEO organization disarms themselves.

Quote

I personally think some kind of mandatory gun safety course should be in place before anyone owns a gun.

We USED to have that, it was called Militia Duty. However, too many asshole authoritarians poisoned that well a long time ago.

[Ran]

Just now, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Wow, let's just toss the whole concept of Mens Rea out the window while we're at it...

Don't compound your effort to mislead others. What @Varysblackfyre321 said was absolutely correct, and you attempted to obfuscate by a narrow reading of what he said. The correct way to respond is to say, "Yes, in states without universal background check laws, that's true" and then you explain why you're opposed to universal background checks, or why you aren't.

[TheNecromancerofMirkwood]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Don't compound your effort to mislead others. What @Varysblackfyre321 said was absolutely correct, and you attempted to obfuscate by a narrow reading of what he said. The correct way to respond is to say, "Yes, in states without universal background check laws, that's true" and then you explain why you're opposed to universal background checks, or why you aren't.

Okay, fine. Universal Background Checks DON'T WORK. Its not rocket science. Criminals will just find ANOTHER WAY to bypass said checks and obtain weapons. Again, collective punishment is bullshit authoritarianism.

[SerHaHa]

4 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Nah, we're talking about deadly weapons. If someone was capable of stealing them, you clearly didn't secure them well enough.

What, according to you, would be considered "securing them well enough".  The Canadian Firearms Act and the RCMP have storage requirements that need to be met, in terms of the types of containers as well as having them locked.  Breaking into many of these said containers, safes, vaults, and locks, comes down to the type of tool used frequently.  IE a metal tool kit with a good lock, you can cut that open with a decent saw.  A hard polymer/plastic case of similar shape and design - a metal mallet/slege will bash that open in a minute or less.

Look at the various YT videos available online, we're talking some  thousand(s) dollar vaults in some cases that have been easily, and rapidly, accessed without the key, combo, or bio metric material needed to "legitimately" open them.  These vids are just a quick and small sample of what's available online regarding a huge swath of safe/vault makers vulnerabilities. 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lockpick+gun+safe

In terms of "safe storage", the attacking team (criminals), will always, always have a huge advantage over the defense.  Short of having a living, breathing, armed guard (which defeats the entire purpose), any secure storage steps taken can be circumvented, and usually much faster than most believe. 

I support safe storage, in particular with regards to keeping firearms and ammunition out of the hands of both children and those untrained in the safe handling of both, as well as increasing the difficulty/time unskilled/unprepared criminals need to steal them - criminals who frequently are just doing a very rapid smash/grab, frequently looking for easy to steal high value items to feed their addiction.  However, where "safe firearms storage" is only a step or two up the ladder from useless, and is largely just a talking point, is targeted attacks/thefts to specifically steal firearms.  Again, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to acquire both the knowledge and tools required to defeat the vast majority of the safe storage options available.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm sure there are some non dumb as fuck gun people out there. Why are they never the loud ones? 

Maybe those circles do not overlap.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Okay, fine. Universal Background Checks DON'T WORK. Its not rocket science. Criminals will just find ANOTHER WAY to bypass said checks and obtain weapons. Again, collective punishment is bullshit authoritarianism.

Using this sort of rational why even have laws that specifically bar ex-felons from having guns in the first place?

Hell using this sort of rational why have any laws for really anything given criminals will try to find ways to circumvent them? 

Why make it law for stores or bars to check a person’s ID to see they are allowed to drink alcohol before serving them a beer?

Kids’ find way to get buzzed anyway!

Why make it a law for car-manufactures to make their products have seat-belts, or require people wear said seat belts?

There will still be People who won't wear seat-belts. 

Also yes. Criminals will find ways to get guns.

But it will be harder and more risky for more than a few because the ”responsible” law-abiding gun-owners know they could go to prison if they don't check a potential customer is allowed to have a gun.

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

You've obviously never sold a firearm (or probably even bought one).

Meh nope to both. 

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Again, you've never purchased a firearm if you think this is remotely true. Giving a fireram to a known felon is a FELONY

@Ran’s point in regards to not knowing who is a felon by glance is correct. 

A private seller does not know the criminal history of every person interested in purchasing their wares-nor are they obligated to try to find out if a potential buyer even has a criminal history.

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

dunno, maybe teach your kids not to point a firearm at anyone when they're old enough to understand "Don't touch this!"? Maybe be a better parent and make sure your crotch goblins aren't screwing around with your firearms? Its people who fear firearms and either don't own them or have never even handled one that are the danger to the rest of us. These are people for whom the phrase "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch" was invented.

Meh, kids don't always listen to their parents; just going don't touch isn't always effective.

And teens and kids can get depressed, or suicidal.

Which could make them having such easy access to a gun even more problematic. 

Best way to help increase the odds of your kid not messing with your gun?

Actually have it locked up. 

This is what a good parent or guardian  should do when a child is living with them.

Also to the bolded legal gun-owners aren't in the majority. They're still a significant minority in this country to be sure, but this rhetoric seems to imply you think gun-owners are the majority.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

And "storing" you firearm (I assume you mean in a safe or locked cabinet and the like) makes it useless for home defense when you maybe have seconds to respond to a life-threatening situation.

Hmm You’re seriously objecting to the idea of locking your guns up when you're not currently using them as being careless. 

Also, it makes any talk ”don’t touch this.” less effective when kids could see guns are so easy to access.

Also, yeah if a criminal breaks in your home--while you aren't there-and decides to take your  unsecured firearms, you’ve just helped make the community you live in that much more dangerous. 

9 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

And furthermore, I am only culpable for MY ACTIONS.

As an adult  you can also be culpable for your lack of action in regards to your dealings with minors-especially those under your care-if not legally, morally.

If your kids kills him or herself with a gun you just lying around unattended(perhaps loaded to like any other household appliance, you are not morally blameless. 

Your gun being used to kill or hurt someone you love or responsible for is a more likely scenario than it being used to ward off a home-intruder or someone trying to do you harm.

It is only responsible for you to make sure others don't have easy access to your weapon. 

7 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

Most firearms are stored since you only keep 1 or 2 for self defense (most common home defense is a pump-action 12-guage shotgun and a pistol). Plenty of people have Conceal/Carry Permits, so they carry 1 or 2 on them at all time in a holster, concealed. 

That does not seem to be the case.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-02-22/majority-of-us-gun-owners-dont-safely-store-weapons-study-says?context=amp

 

[James Arryn]

What kind of world do you guys live in where you need to think about personal self-defence all the time? Tombstone?

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, TheNecromancerofMirkwood said:

 

If its illegal for ME to do it, then its (by any stretch of logic) illegal for the government to do it.

 

Look, I appreciate what it's like to walk into a situation where you're arguing with everyone.  My point is that by this logic anyone can use the most absurd or even the most tragic but banal abuses of power to justify any kind of shitty behavior.  

You mentioned the fast and furious scandal as an argument against safe gun storage.  This is like arguing that it should be ok to massacre people because the US government comitted genocide against the first Nations, or to sexually abuse people because it happens all the time in Federal prison.  

Yes, no one should be above the law, by the same token no one should be free to commit any atrocity just because the government (the actual form of the people's power manifest) has done so in the past 

If you want to talk about demilitarizing or disarming the police and kneecapping the military industrial complex or abolishing prisons I am right there with you pal.  But let's not pretend we can confuse rights with instances of tragic abuse of power .

[Gorn]

As someone who's generally supportive of individual gun ownership (on a purely philosophical level; I don't own any myself, and never have), I find the opposition to any sort of regulation... baffling at the very least.

After all, you need to jump through a whole bunch of hoops to be able to legally operate a car, which is far more important and beneficial on both social and individual level than owning a gun, and which directly affects people's ability to work and general quality of life. You have to be of certain age, you have to pass a test to prove you know how to drive - which, at least in my country, includes passing a theoretical test to prove you know the relevant laws and regulations, mandatory number of driving practice hours, and passing physical and mental health tests. After you receive your licence, you're still limited in how you're allowed to drive (drunk driving laws, speed limits, seatbelt laws...), and your right to drive may be taken away from you based on your actions.

None of these laws will physically prevent a drunk teenager without a licence from getting behind a wheel and driving 100 km/h through a residential street, but they make this an exception rather than the rule, and they save countless lives.

[argonak]

18 hours ago, James Arryn said:

What kind of world do you guys live in where you need to think about personal self-defence all the time? Tombstone?

Ironically, tombstone had a ban on guns and large knives in the city limits.

A large portion of america has a bit of a fetish of the idea of self defense.  However, there are areas of the country where it is still very dangerous, and home invasion or mugging is a real possibility.  Additionally, a lot of people still living went through the America's period of extreme violent crime (from 60s to late 80s).  Violent crime has drastically decreased since then (for reasons that we're still arguing about), but a lot of people haven't really internalized that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 1/27/2020 at 9:26 AM, argonak said:

Ironically, tombstone had a ban on guns and large knives in the city limits.

A large portion of america has a bit of a fetish of the idea of self defense.  However, there are areas of the country where it is still very dangerous, and home invasion or mugging is a real possibility.  Additionally, a lot of people still living went through the America's period of extreme violent crime (from 60s to late 80s).  Violent crime has drastically decreased since then (for reasons that we're still arguing about), but a lot of people haven't really internalized that.

I think it doesn't help with the way media doesn't call enough attention to this fact. There's also politicians who exploit the idea of America’s crime rate being out of control in an effort to get people to vote for them.

There's also the belief of in the face government oppression the accessibility to firearms would be key to combating it.

Which in my opinion...eh.

Access to Firearms certainly could be a part. I think people generally over-rely on them. 

In terms of violent resistance with the use of guns, I struggle to to think of any point where in centuries since the American Revolution war where the public’s access to guns prevented oppression, or been much of a catalyst to end oppression within the US.

In the face of the Supreme Court saying it's ok for government to jail people for saying the draft was immoral the mass public with ready access to firearms did nothing. 

In the face of Japanese being sent to concentration camps the public also did nothing. 

Hell I’ve seen a person justify such a violation of rights, while simultaneously arguing guns are needed to prevent  tyranny.

I genuinely think if the government decided to lock up or kill off gays, most of those who say they'd commit an arm resistance in the face of government abusing its citizens would do nothing.

Because to many of them gays are sinners.

If government started banning certain religions that don't worship the Judeo-Christian version of God I imagine most them would justify it.

Because to many of them, being a good Christian entails them trying to get  special treatment from government. 

If the government started imprisoning people who burned the American flag most would glorify it.

Because many of them fashion good ole fashion patriots.   

It just seems so long the groups being oppressed aren't Christian, white, straight males positioned on the Right, many people gleefully anticipating the possibility of overthrowing the government won't do anything-hell they may join in the oppression.