Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.

Ad Content
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #201   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old 2 Weeks Ago (11:22 AM). Edited 2 Weeks Ago by Frequency.
Frequency's Avatar
Frequency Frequency is offline
...Time to mix drinks and change lives.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Boundary
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
Most of those state laws refer to people who went through court proceedings to be locked up. The desired gun control psych evals don’t go through that process. At one point they were trying to deny gun ownership to people who needed help handling their personal finances.
Thanks for clarifying that for me. But why the hell would they deny guns to people who need help handling finances? That sounds...well, stupid.

Quote:
Every single person in the world has the potential to be a risk in the future. You can be perfectly healthy right now and suffer some mishap that causes you to become a danger to everyone around you.
Thing is, that dangerous person is still dangerous regardless of a gun or not. Restricting Rights based on what someone might potentially do in the future is a terrible idea. That way lies facism.
Yeah. Especially that second part. Something wild can happen in someone's life and they just snap, and not even with a gun. This goes back to what I said earlier in the thread; I could walk to the store right now and someone might pose a threat to me, gun or not. Someone could pick up a brick and probably kill me with it. Someone could take a tree stick and beat my head in with it. Someone could go get a steak knife right now and...well, you get the idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #202   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old 2 Weeks Ago (3:06 PM). Edited 2 Weeks Ago by LDSman.
LDSman LDSman is offline
     
    Join Date: Dec 2017
    Posts: 242
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hakumen View Post
    Thanks for clarifying that for me. But why the hell would they deny guns to people who need help handling finances? That sounds...well, stupid.
    Because they qualify as “mentally ill”. And well, most gun control laws are stupid.

    Quote:
    Yeah. Especially that second part. Something wild can happen in someone's life and they just snap, and not even with a gun. This goes back to what I said earlier in the thread; I could walk to the store right now and someone might pose a threat to me, gun or not. Someone could pick up a brick and probably kill me with it. Someone could take a tree stick and beat my head in with it. Someone could go get a steak knife right now and...well, you get the idea.
    And many studies show that people suffer less injury when they can use a gun to defend themselves against such an attacker.

    Oh look. Another cop breaking the law and selling guns illegally.

    https://www.recordonline.com/news/20190301/da-area-cop-made-sold-illegal-guns-tipped-off-drug-ring-suspect
    __________________
    Currently engaging in exercises of futility. Please stand by.
    Reply With Quote
      #203   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old 2 Weeks Ago (9:53 AM). Edited 2 Weeks Ago by Frequency.
    Frequency's Avatar
    Frequency Frequency is offline
    ...Time to mix drinks and change lives.
     
    Join Date: Apr 2009
    Location: The Boundary
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 1,098
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
    Genuine question: How often are members of law enforcement (or anyone, really) caught selling guns illegally? Cause one thing I definitely didn't think of while I've been in this thread is while we're discussing potential sanctions on legal sellers of guns, what answer do we have for those who are most DEFINITELY black marketing firearms, no questions asked?
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #204   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old 2 Weeks Ago (9:56 AM).
    gimmepie's Avatar
    gimmepie gimmepie is offline
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Australia
    Age: 23
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 19,216
    In fairness, being blind is a pretty damn good reason not to own a gun.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #205   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old 2 Weeks Ago (10:00 AM).
    Frequency's Avatar
    Frequency Frequency is offline
    ...Time to mix drinks and change lives.
     
    Join Date: Apr 2009
    Location: The Boundary
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 1,098
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
    In fairness, being blind is a pretty damn good reason not to own a gun.
    I was thinking this the whole time, but I didn't wanna be the one to have to say it lmao.
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #206   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
    Old 2 Weeks Ago (11:37 AM).
    LDSman LDSman is offline
       
      Join Date: Dec 2017
      Posts: 242
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Hakumen View Post
      Genuine question: How often are members of law enforcement (or anyone, really) caught selling guns illegally? Cause one thing I definitely didn't think of while I've been in this thread is while we're discussing potential sanctions on legal sellers of guns, what answer do we have for those who are most DEFINITELY black marketing firearms, no questions asked?
      Brief search shows at least 4 law enforcement types. DC, NY, CA. And that was just two years. Didn’t count the antigun politicians caught selling guns illegally.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
      In fairness, being blind is a pretty damn good reason not to own a gun.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Hakumen View Post
      I was thinking this the whole time, but I didn't wanna be the one to have to say it lmao.
      Discrimination on the basis of physical disabilities is bad. There have been a number of blind (legally or clinically) people who have successfully defended themselves against muggers, burglars and whatnot. Plus there are blind shooting groups. They use electronic devices to help line up targets.

      I’m not finding links to articles on blind people accidentally shooting someone.

      I’ve had this argument with Maeder before.
      __________________
      Currently engaging in exercises of futility. Please stand by.
      Reply With Quote
        #207   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
      Old 2 Weeks Ago (12:30 PM). Edited 2 Weeks Ago by Frequency.
      Frequency's Avatar
      Frequency Frequency is offline
      ...Time to mix drinks and change lives.
       
      Join Date: Apr 2009
      Location: The Boundary
      Nature: Adamant
      Posts: 1,098
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
      Brief search shows at least 4 law enforcement types. DC, NY, CA. And that was just two years. Didn’t count the antigun politicians caught selling guns illegally.
      How strong is the incentive for selling your guns/turning your guns in for those who don't want them? I'm not sure if it would help any, but the gun buyback program is still a thing, right? Or are those not a constant availability? If they were, do you think that would encourage people to not sell their guns to second-hand parties? Or would it not matter since it's the law officials who are doing the selling?

      Quote:
      Discrimination on the basis of physical disabilities is bad. There have been a number of blind (legally or clinically) people who have successfully defended themselves against muggers, burglars and whatnot. Plus there are blind shooting groups. They use electronic devices to help line up targets.

      I’m not finding links to articles on blind people accidentally shooting someone.

      I’ve had this argument with Maeder before.
      I'd hesitate to call it discrimination. Pretty sure it's a common thought to think "why have a gun when you can't see". I digress though, I'm pretty ignorant of blind shooting groups and whatnot.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #208   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
      Old 2 Weeks Ago (1:13 PM). Edited 1 Week Ago by LDSman.
      LDSman LDSman is offline
         
        Join Date: Dec 2017
        Posts: 242
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Hakumen View Post
        How strong is the incentive for selling your guns/turning your guns in for those who don't want them? I'm not sure if it would help any, but the gun buyback program is still a thing, right? Or are those not a constant availability? If they were, do you think that would encourage people to not sell their guns to second-hand parties? Or would it not matter since it's the law officials who are doing the selling?
        The incentive is rather weak. Gun buybacks never get the money the gun is really worth. You get $50-$100 in cash or gift cards and they only get people who have zero firearm knowledge or gang members looking to ditch a crime gun at the “no questions asked” event. Nothing like watching someone turn in a WW2 or other vintage firearm that’s worth thousands as a collectors item to be turned into scrap.
        The buy backs are pure publicity that do nothing more than to sucker someone who got a gun from grandpa into basically giving it away. The people running it can brag about taking 20 “guns” off the streets and the actual gun people are laughing at the rusted solid junk guns they show off and wincing at the beautiful double barrel with engraved stock that’s about to be sliced simply because the inheritor was too lazy to ask at the gun store.

        The govt can’t afford to pay retail or collectors prices for the guns out there.


        The LEOs selling guns illegally were selling them at above market prices and in many cases to known felons.

        Quote:
        I'd hesitate to call it discrimination. Pretty sure it's a common thought to think "why have a gun when you can't see". I digress though, I'm pretty ignorant of blind shooting groups and whatnot.
        Self defense is still self defense.

        Edit: comments from Facebook regarding the GOA case on the bump stock ban. The GOA website hasn’t been updated yet.
        Edit: link is up.
        https://gunowners.org/alert3719/
        Quote:
        It's not on the GOA website yet, but here's a report from the bumpfire stock ban case:

        Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.

        This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not -- in fact, he refused to -- counter Olson’s statement on this point.
        And a follow up comment.

        Quote:
        The judge asked GOA’s counsel if a bump stock allows an uninterrupted automatic cycle of fire -- as a machine gun would.

        Olson said NO. He explained that a bump stock allows for repeated SEMI-automatic fire in a rapid manner, where each function of the trigger produces one bullet out the end of the barrel -- albeit occurring in rapid, repeated succession.

        The government took the contrary view, claiming that a bump stock starts in motion a continuous chain of successive fire.

        More to the point, Olson noted that while an untrained shooter could fire an automatic weapon with one hand -- by simply pulling the trigger back -- no person could repeatedly bump fire a semi-automatic weapon with just one hand.

        Even the ATF has had to concede in its written regulation that bump firing a weapon requires the shooter to use both hands.

        And this gets to the core distinction between a bump stock and an automatic weapon. The U.S. code defines a machine gun as a firearm that can shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

        One can fire a machine gun with only one hand because the internal mechanism in the weapon will produce automatic fire with a “single function” of the trigger.

        But to bump fire a semi-auto, the shooter must use two hands, and in most cases, spend time learning how to actually perfect his individual technique for each different bump stock firearm.

        Anyone who has ever bump fired a semi-auto knows there is a learning curve in determining the appropriate amount of force with which to push forward on the firearm using the non-trigger hand.

        So in other words, it’s the shooter who creates the bump fire effect. Because “bump firing,” first and foremost, is a technique, and not a product that is sold over-the-counter.

        But that’s not the case with a machine gun. A person who has never touched a gun could easily fire an automatic weapon because it’s the internal mechanism that actually allows repeated rounds to be fired “automatically.”

        ~~~

        Would I have paid $35,000 for three machine guns if a $200 stock was "just as good"?
        Edit.
        http://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2019/1310/billtext/filed/html

        This piece of muck violates the 1st Amendment. It’s makes it a misdemeanor for kids to post on social media pictures of guns or gun like objects. It also grants police warrantless searches in such cases and allows police to seize and destroy said firearms. It doesn’t have exceptions.
        __________________
        Currently engaging in exercises of futility. Please stand by.
        Reply With Quote
          #209   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
        Old 1 Day Ago (11:19 AM).
        JDJacket's Avatar
        JDJacket JDJacket is offline
        Electric Jacket
           
          Join Date: Oct 2016
          Location: Multipliers. Amplifiers.
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Quiet
          Posts: 1,113
          Well hello again. I'm sure it's been said in here before, but I am not goin to bother sifting through half-truths, stumbling thoughts, poor ideas and other such nonsense that would cause a conniption of some kind.

          The point here, for me, is that the very idea for others that live in different countries can dictate to the US is a laughable one. Let's clear that off the plate first.

          Your population is smaller, you have a singular government system as opposed to the twin system of the United States, you have less gangs, less felonious individuals etc. ad nauseum.

          I've said before in the past and I still stand by it now, our government system is too complex for an easy chair warrior to stroll by and fix.

          I have given access to links and sources and to the only ones that matter: the FBI, ATF, DOJ, DOD, DHS, ICE and the rest of the alphabet soup. If you are interested in seeing what Americans use to kill eachother with I direct you to the FBI's UCR database table 8. Bothing to post the table here is an effort in futility as it will ultimately be ignored, as it has been before.

          Rifles and shotguns kill less people annually than handguns. Knives kill more people annually than rifles; bludgeoning weapons and personal weapons (hands and feet) also outclass rifles year after year.

          Blue in the face, I've said this again and again. Even if you ban 'assault rifles' (if you say assault rifle, you really need to reconsider because your knowledge of firearms is horribly under par) nothing will ever change. The US saw this when these 'weapon types' were banned from '94 to '04 and little to no change occured.

          Rifles are bored in all shapes and sizes. I doubt the majority of you arguing to ban firearms have ever held a cartridge in your hand, let alone seen a firearm in person or even held one.

          If you are concerned about the 'sky-rocketing' homicide rate in the US, don't be. We're doing just fine. Our homicide rates are down to numbers not seen since the 60's and even the 50's. Keep in mind we have more people living in the US now than we did 60 and 70 years ago. What's laughable is that the US, by last count, has over 30K seperate active gangs (not gang members. We have more gangbangers than some countries have populations). And despite this, the US' violent crime is actually dropping steadily, but Europe's is climbing! Hahaha.

          The US has a larger population than most of Europe, but several pockets have extremely high rates of Ra_e, homicide and other violent crimes . . . all with a lesser population.

          London banning knives after they banned firearms. Moving on from there what will happen if the homicide rate fails to drop?

          Everyone cares to make a show that they care about lives, but they don't. They use shootings the the media covers as a spring board to blame guns "If rifles 'argument goes here' those people would still be alive!'

          Eh, wth. Here. Read it or don't. But don't cry outrage when nothing changes. If anything, our homicide rates continue to decline, which I think is quite a feat. Of course, that doesn't much matter to people that shout up and down that rifles are to blame and give no solution to combat the myriad gang killings (killing innocent people). Trying to get a gangbanger to follow the law is like trying to teach a cockroach to not be ugly.

          https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/preliminary-report

          https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
          __________________
          Reply With Quote
            #210   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
          Old 19 Hours Ago (5:25 PM).
          gimmepie's Avatar
          gimmepie gimmepie is offline
           
          Join Date: May 2012
          Location: Australia
          Age: 23
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Adamant
          Posts: 19,216
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by JDJacket View Post
          Snip
          The population argument makes no sense. There are places with much larger populations and population density with less gun crime and also better gun control. Even within the US NYC is the largest city you have by far and yet has less gun crime than smaller cities like New Orleans. It also has better gun control.

          I don't think "people will still kill people" is the best argument either. Of course there's always going to be messed up, violent people out there but why should we make it easier by continuing to allow such easy access to firearms? I don't think the ease of access to guns is the entire problem, it's more complicated than that, but why add fuel to the fire?

          Sorry I haven't gone through the entirety of your post just yet but reading through, those two points jumped out to me.
          __________________
          Reply With Quote
            #211   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
          Old 16 Hours Ago (8:59 PM).
          JDJacket's Avatar
          JDJacket JDJacket is offline
          Electric Jacket
             
            Join Date: Oct 2016
            Location: Multipliers. Amplifiers.
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Quiet
            Posts: 1,113
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
            The population argument makes no sense. There are places with much larger populations and population density with less gun crime and also better gun control. Even within the US NYC is the largest city you have by far and yet has less gun crime than smaller cities like New Orleans. It also has better gun control.

            I don't think "people will still kill people" is the best argument either. Of course there's always going to be messed up, violent people out there but why should we make it easier by continuing to allow such easy access to firearms? I don't think the ease of access to guns is the entire problem, it's more complicated than that, but why add fuel to the fire?

            Sorry I haven't gone through the entirety of your post just yet but reading through, those two points jumped out to me.
            You have never seemed to ever combat the gang population argument. You have danced around it in the past.

            The argument of 'population' is not the density, but the overall populace. We can splice and slice the demographics any way you would like, however the fact remains that Europe has less gang members per capita than the United States. Gang members account for an estimated 80-90% of all firearm related homicides (I have stated this before but I will say it again) in the United States. This is correllated by the alphabet soup that is the United States law enforcement.

            Yet, despite the United States having a) more gangbangers and felons per capita and b) more firearms per capita the United States is seeing a decline in violent crime across the board, despite more guns existing now than back in the 50's and 60's. How? If your argument is "It's easy to buy a gun" then why is the homicide rate declining while the population increases along with the firearm ownership increase? Surely the more guns there are, the more deaths from guns (per capita) would see an increase. But the US sees a decrease? (this isn't to say that we're done, there is always work to be done)

            I could make the argument, regardless of the sense it makes or not, that increasing the number of firearms in the US has led to a decrease in violent crime. It may or may not be true, but the possibility to make that argument is available. If more firearms meant more death than that argument would fall flat entirely but it is given legs by the fact that crime isn't climbing.

            What's more is that some states with less firearm control laws see less firearm related homicides, but others with harsher gun control see more. Why? Probably the gangbangers.

            Explain to me, someone who follows the law and uses my property legally and responsibly, why I should be required to give my property without just compensation (a 'buy-back' program is a joke and you'll get pennies on the dollar) or be forced to follow laws that are then crafted to make me the bad guy?

            Criminals do not, will not and won't ever follow the laws. The cartels bring in weapons across the border, foreign countries smuggle in weapons at other entry points.

            We have laws against giving weapons to felons (a felony) we have laws that say felons cannot own any gun whatsoever but how, in all that is holy do gangbangers manage to consistently make up 80-90% of all firearm homicides? They can't own them. They can't buy them legally. Family members buying them for others is a felony.

            Would you like it so gangbanger's families cannot buy any firearm whatsoever? What about the cartels? What about the guns that remain in circulation? (Not all guns from homicides are recovered, thus they can be sold or traded to another gangbanger)

            Right now, we see London trying to prevent the sales and purchase of knives because criminals are using them to kill people. If, hypothetically, the US follows their shining example, would we be able to avoid this issue? I've already explained time and time and time again that we have more damned gangbangers than you or anybody else on the planet. Our crime is organized, we use the most narcotics, and a slew of other baddies that we try to keep locked up.

            That's not to say we have the most homicides (I think it might be Honduras?) but gangbangers and cartels are not typically cartels and gangbangers just to be cartels and gangbangers. They like money. They kill people for money, over money, over drugs, over slaves and anything else under the sun. They will never follow any law you will ever conceive of or put forth.

            I have no idea how to be any clearer.

            If a single demographic (gangbangers and felons, cartels etc.) commit 80-90% of all firearm related homicides (I think 70% of all other violent crime), if you take away 100% of all the guns everywhere in the United States (You found Will Smith and wished it to be so) do you have any guarantee that this number will shift?

            This is my point. All the guns everywhere and will it make a difference? "It's a start" isn't an excuse to strip legal citizen's rights away, because in the United States unlike much of everywhere else it is a right.

            Maybe I can be considered fanatical, but failing to address the number one issue of guncrime is crazy to me.

            Do you have any suggestions at all to combat the gangbangers? The gangbangers already have guns they have illegally and I highly doubt they'd ever hand them over wllingly. The criminals are rhe problem here. Mass shootings (3 or more people) account for the least amount of firearm related homicides. This isn't to say homicides aren't tragic, but to me, claiming to 'care' about the US' citizens only after media shootings is quite sick. I've despised every single media shooting because it isn't respectful and empty platitudes and half-brained ideas give me a headache.

            Does anyone pay attention the rest of the time or does everyone just like munching popcorn and proclaiming how awful shootings are? Because from what I have seen is always:

            1) a shooting happens

            2) people proclaim guns are evil

            3) push more gun laws

            4) ignore the drug and gang related homicides the rest of the time

            and the cycle repeats.
            __________________
            Reply With Quote
              #212   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
            Old 8 Hours Ago (4:50 AM).
            Nah's Avatar
            Nah Nah is online now
             
            Join Date: Nov 2013
            Age: 26
            Gender: Female
            Posts: 13,162
            Got any links on the gang thing, especially in relation to other countries? I'm having a hard time finding stuff.
            __________________
            Nah ンン
            “No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
            Reply With Quote
            Reply

            Quick Reply

            Join the conversation!

            Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

            Create a PokéCommunity Account
            Ad Content
            Thread Tools

            Posting Rules
            You may not post new threads
            You may not post replies
            You may not post attachments
            You may not edit your posts

            BB code is On
            Smilies are On
            [IMG] code is On
            HTML code is Off
            Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

            Forum Jump


            All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:07 PM.