Great Great Great Grandson of Gun Control...

[lupis42]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/obama-executive-actions-guns_n_3836183.html

Obama has selected two more "common sense" gun control proposals to push via executive action:

Going after the import of military surplus firearms, and going after gun trusts.

As much as I try to view the actions of politicians through Hanlon's razor, this is far too sophisticated to be mere ignorance.

[thecryptile]

Those ignorant about guns might think military surplus means a fully automatic weapon like an M4, but those of us who have actually bought surplus firearms know better. Ironically most military surplus fire-arms are low capacity rifles like the SMLE and Mosin Nagant, they aren't typical crime guns. Most would just end up as safe queens and wall hangers. Saying that limiting the import of antique rifles will have any impact on street crime is disingenuous at best.

We've seen this before, when Secretary of State Clinton blocked the import of M1 Garands from S. Korea, claiming that they were "high capacity assault rifles". The definition of assault rifle is very nebulous, but few would consider an 8 round rifle as "high capacity".

As to the corporate registrations, well, that doesn't really effect the majority of gun owners, so I doubt we will see much outcry there. More of those weapons will be registered to individuals instead of corporations, again having little or no effect on street crime.

[The Progressive]

Very sophisticated and stealth move to pass more enforcement policies via the executive branch as the legislative branch keep getting railroaded by the nra and their useful idiots.

[Free Northman]

Some good news folks.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/28/read-react-iowa-hostage-kills-fugitive-after-prison-escape/

A 71 year old homeowner and his wife were held hostage by an escaped convict in their home. After 4 hours of being trapped in their upstairs room with their phone lines severed, the pensioner decided enough is enough, took out his shotgun, went downstairs and shot the hostage taker dead.

One for the good guys.

[The Progressive]

Very nice. Very charles bronsonesque.

[sToNED_CAT]

Some good news folks.

http://www.gunsandam...-prison-escape/

A 71 year old homeowner and his wife were held hostage by an escaped convict in their home. After 4 hours of being trapped in their upstairs room with their phone lines severed, the pensioner decided enough is enough, took out his shotgun, went downstairs and shot the hostage taker dead.

One for the good guys.

But... I thought the guns are useless and people would be better off without them!?

[Seli]

But... I thought the guns are useless and people would be better off without them!?

That might be because statistics are difficult, so once more.

The point isn't that these things don't happen, the point is that they are relatively rare. And assuming the data we have is correct and generalizing here the guns are more likely to be used to harm the owner than in a situation like this.

Of course the point of this story could also be that the escapee was only armed with a gun because he had stolen it elsewhere during his escape (seems there was likely a slightly careless gun-owner involved there*).

and of course:

Authorities say they combed the area near the home three times Monday—the last search taking place around 11 a.m.—but at about 10:15 p.m. that night, Long broke into the Mauderlys’ home, disabled their landline phones and began making calls with their cell phone.

Meanwhile, the elderly couple remained in their bedroom for four hours while Long wandered through the home, apparently gathering supplies for yet another escape.

Finally, Jerome Mauderly decided enough was enough, grabbed his shotgun and shot Long once. Carolyn Mauderly called 911 at about 2:11 a.m. Tuesday. A responding trooper found Long face down in the Mauderlys’ kitchen; neither Jerome nor Carolyn were injured.

So while it is all fine and dandy under castle doctrine, personally I kind of doubt this would easily fly under local laws here. There does not seem to have been any immediate threat.

*eta: at this point it almost makes sense to charge this gun owner with accessory to murder/wrongful death; but that probably won't happen any time soon.

[Free Northman]

That might be because statistics are difficult, so once more.

*eta: at this point it almost makes sense to charge this gun owner with accessory to murder/wrongful death; but that probably won't happen any time soon.

Once again, I am struck by just how different the worlview of different people can be. My goodness. How can anyone not applaud the actions of this pensioner? To paraphrase Terry Pratchett quite badly, and completely out of context, "This is a Worlde gone Madde".

[Seli]

Once again, I am struck by just how different the worlview of different people can be. My goodness. How can anyone not applaud the actions of this pensioner? To paraphrase Terry Pratchett quite badly, and completely out of context, "This is a Worlde gone Madde".

Not the pensioner! I write convoluted, but I thought the * was clear enough. Over here perhaps, but never in the US.

That last remark was about the person who owned the gun stolen by the convict:

At some point after the escape, authorities believe Long broke into a house just north of Clarinda, stealing a semi-automatic pistol, money and clothes.

eta: Although applauding or approving of what the pensioner did would not come natural to me. According to the description in that piece there was absolutely no need for what he did, even if it is completely legal. A fuller story might sway me in that though.

[Free Northman]

Not the pensioner! I write convoluted, but I thought the * was clear enough. Over here perhaps, but never in the US.

That last remark was about the person who owned the gun stolen by the convict:

eta: Although applauding or approving of what the pensioner did would not come natural to me. According to the description in that piece there was absolutely no need for what he did, even if it is completely legal. A fuller story might sway me in that though.

Ah, ok, that makes it clearer.

Anyway, to me it came quite naturally. Applauding the actions of the pensioner, I mean.

[lupis42]

As to the corporate registrations, well, that doesn't really effect the majority of gun owners, so I doubt we will see much outcry there. More of those weapons will be registered to individuals instead of corporations, again having little or no effect on street crime.

No, and details aren't hashed out yet (because this would be an ATF rule change), but what they're targeting are gun trusts, which are how privately owned NFA items are generally possessed, and they're doing it under false pretenses: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2013/08/whitehousegov-posts-fact-sheet.html

[Free Northman]

What I just don't get is the mentality that is being displayed here. Biden said something along the lines of "If we dont get our way now (due to a majority of legislators not agreeing with them), then we will just keep trying until we get it done with new legislators."

There is no concept of live and let live. In other words, there is no concept of agree to disagree on a matter. There is no concept of: "We understand that around 50% of the country (or more) feel very differently to us on this issue, and therefore we acknowledge that they may have a right to live according to their convictions.

Instead, the attitude is basically an assertion that that 50% of the country can get buggered, and they are simply wrong. We will get our way and they will just have to see that we were right and they were wrong.

Bringing me back to the view that there must be a way to satisfy both parties. As in have different rules apply to different regions, depending on what the majority in each region want. These federal attempts to make EVERYONE live according to what the administration feels is right, is just wrong. Plain wrong.

[Fragile Bird]

Gee whiz, why would it be that you chose to post the story about the 71 year old shooting the hostage taker instead of the story about the congressman shooting the teacher in the training session for teachers he wants to have armed in schools? Was it because it was just a training session and the bullet was a rubber bulletin and didn't count? Was it because the congressman didn't mention the fact he shot the teacher instead if the intruder in the exercise in his press release about the training session, and you are respecting his silence? :P

And if it was mentioned in the previous thread and I missed it, please accept my apologies. I'm on my cell phone and can't easily search.

As for the pensioner, up here he'd be charged with murder. Did the guy harm them, or best them, or shoot his wife?

ETA: Good thread title, lupis42!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Gee whiz, why would it be that you chose to post the story about the 71 year old shooting the hostage taker instead of the story about the congressman shooting the teacher in the training session for teachers he wants to have armed in schools? Was it because it was just a training session and the bullet was a rubber bullet in and didn't count?

I can't speak for why he posted one story over another, but the differences are obvious. One was training with non-lethal munitions, and one was killing a kidnapper. People make lots of mistakes in training. That's why they're getting trained.

As for the pensioner, up here he'd be charged with murder.

You guys can feel free to do things how you wish, but I think most Americans believe that kidnapping victims have every right to use deadly force to free themselves.

Did the guy harm them, or beat them....?

Would that make a differences? Would getting beaten or punched be justification for shooting the kidnapper?

[Seli]

Not a kidnapper FLoW, hostage taker at most.

Personally I have found no sources that they were at any risk or had been threatened. Of course neither is necessary in most of the US for this type of defence to be legal.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not a kidnapper FLoW, hostage taker at most.

No difference, under U.S. law at least. Both are prosecuted as forcibly detaining another person against their will.

Personally I have found no sources that they were at any risk or had been threatened. Of course neither is necessary in most of the US for this type of defence to be legal.

Well, can you answer the question I posted to Fragile Bird? What would it take for the victims to be justified in killing?

[paddington]

They may not have been at risk, they have to believe that their life is at risk at the time. Well would appear that way from the way the UK law is written.

If he was armed then it's fair to assume they did believe they were in danger. I am not overly sure it matters too much what the intentions of the kidnapper were.

[Commodore]

Very sophisticated and stealth move to pass more enforcement policies via the executive branch as the legislative branch keep getting railroaded by the nra and their useful idiots.

It is quite easy to get things done when they can just be decreed rather than voted on.

We are more and more being ruled by men and ministries, not laws.

[Fragile Bird]

I asked the question because, of course, the views presented here are so polarized.

You have no idea how freaky it is to those of us elsewhere in the world that someone would just take a gun and kill an intruder. And, we assume, not face any consequences. In most of the rest of the world, the rule is you can use as much force as is being used against yourself. I assume the intruder had a weapon of some kind, perhaps a gun, but he sent the couple upstairs while he hid out in their house. Obviously if he left within an hour or two nothing would have happened. The householder seems to have gotten impatient (and may have wondered about the worst that could have happened), but killing seems extreme to some of us. He had the gun, he could have said "get the f*** out of here or I'll shoot you".

And in terms of pov, I read a lot about how teachers should be carrying guns in the class room. The congressman involved, whoever he was, was in this training course, knowing what was going to happen, a gun owner who I'm sure shot off his mouth about how anyone with training would stop a gunman from killing students, and there at the training session under absolutely no real life pressure, shoots the teacher instead of the intruder. For some reason I was thinking this story would never be mentioned by one side in these threads, not even as a rallying for training. In real life, one might also expect students will get shot too by well meaning gun toters.

[Sci-2]

You guys can feel free to do things how you wish, but I think most Americans believe that kidnapping victims have every right to use deadly force to free themselves.

I have to admit that the sensibilities of people in other countries, and some of my fellow liberals in this one, have pushed me more and more to the conservative side of this issue.

But then I live in a weird world of uber progressives who own guns and pitbulls....