How would that work with a time-limited permit, renewal made dependent on a test of suitability? Would that be enough to satisfy due process ?Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
How would that work with a time-limited permit, renewal made dependent on a test of suitability? Would that be enough to satisfy due process ?
Congratulations America
We do take away driving licenses. . . by getting the courts involved. You have to actually get ruled against and even then it's not any kind of first response. Intervention in domestic disputes is hard to handle already, with the limits of what due process allows being one of the reasons. Will an approach like this cause some minimal improvement? Yes, but it's going to be on the margins, just like an assault weapons ban.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You could do that, but it's not going to be responsive the way Wiggin was outlining, and the fact is the test of suitability will end up having to be more on the laxer side than the strict one to stay on the right side of other material like the equal protection clause.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Because a gun is a gun; they could all hurt/kill people, so seems useless to argue over whether a 9mm is okay but a 5.56mm isn't depending on the shape of the tube it goes through.
And they are fun. I shot an AR-15 last week and it was fun as hell. Along with a 1911 .45. Can't wait to do it again.
When one thinks about the sheer number of guns floating around the USandA and the number of bullets fired each day by recreational use, the death rate is pretty low. Oreos are probably more lethal than guns on an aggregate basis. We've had legal guns in the US for hundreds of years; this trend is a recent one and is somewhat social/cultural. Ultimately we're only going to stop it with social/cultural change, combined with some common-sense speed bumps for ownership.
Problem is the common sense speed bumps are seen as opening the door to the elements of our politics who talk about "common sense" restrictions but really want to outright ban things. We've lost our ability to trust and compromise on major issues, and gun control is one example of that.
holy shit the ignorance
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001...ttpoolsvsguns/
And when it comes to children pools are far more dangerous than guns. Though cookies in general may cause more deaths through heart disease but that's a much larger leap to make (because people eat a ton of other shit food in addition to Oreos.
Crazy how you managed to dig up a piece thats older than the current international building codes that require pool fencing. Funny how laws work to reduce deaths
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Using this argument, why are we spending hundreds of billions to deal with terrorism? It kills fewer Americans than lightning strikes.
Are you that obtuse? One could kill a handful of people, the other dozens. With equal effort. One is useful for defending oneself, the other is useful if defending against an enemy army.
Hope is the denial of reality
So far the only reason to own an automatic gun is because it is fun, which I totally agree with fun is important!! But I don't see whats wrong in making the guns available to shoot at targets in a controlled environment like a shooting gallery. Guns can be stored there people come in pay an hourly and munitions fee get the gun they want and have fun!! It can be done in a supervised manner and there could be legal requirements for the facility to meet certain safety standards. I don't really see why you need the gun at home.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic not an actual automatic gun.
Assuming one doesn't modify it.
Congratulations America
That'd already be illegal though. And we are talking about what should be legal right?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Probably harder to modify a gun that's difficult to get hold of than one that's easy to get hold of
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think ease of modification could be one of the factors to judge whether a particular firearm should be legal or not, yes. But I'm no gun expert in any way, I wouldn't know how easy or hard modifications are. If they are pretty hard anyway, they'd be done by people who really want am automatic gun, who presumably would be able to find the illegal market too. I mean even if it's illegal if you really want you can always find it.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ing-britain-fi
Time for a "temporary" ban on white men entering the US, I think.
Hope is the denial of reality
He's not being obtuse, you are continuing to be dishonest. The second deadliest shooting in US History was perpetrated by one man with two handguns, and left dozens dead.
Are you always this dishonest? You look at outliers when it comes to handgun use and ignoring the very obvious fact that it's a heck of a lot easier to kill more people with a weapon that shoots faster, has deadlier ammo, and doesn't have to be reloaded every few shots.
Hope is the denial of reality
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Would you have any suggestion about how to check every single one of the semi-automatic rifles areound? In this thread it was claimed there are 15 million in circulation in the USA. Aside from illegal I understand it's also very easy.
Congratulations America
Outliers? You realize you are basing your whole argument on outliers, right? Handguns kill an order of magnitude more people per year than AR-15s, mass shootings are hardly the norm, and not all mass shooters use AR-15s. In essence you are looking at a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a population and then telling me not to focus on outliers. There's something vaguely dishonest about that, yes.
As far as the mechanics of these weapons, you are absolutely out of your depth here, Loki. You simply don't know what you are talking about. An AR-15 does not shoot appreciably faster than a handgun - it obviously depends on the rate at which the weapon can cycle, but generally for most weapons that is faster than the average person can pull the trigger. Either will fire as quickly as the operator is able. Magazine capacity might be halved, (obviously that depends on the handgun, but 16-18 rounds are fairly common magazine capacities for modern handguns) but it is possible to get thirty round handgun magazines, which would put you at parity with what most would consider the standard AR-15 magazine. Again, up until last week's tragedy the deadliest mass shooting in the United States was committed by a deranged man with two handguns.
As far as the "deadliness" of the ammunition, terminal ballistics is a fairly complex subject, and a topic of much debate among people who know far more than you or I. With a rifle you have a higher velocity bullet that is typically much smaller in diameter, and the type of wound it leaves varies on a number of factors. The bullet itself plays an important role, as some bullets are designed to maximize penetration, while others for fragmentation. At close quarters, and depending on where the bullet enters, a rifle bullet might be moving too quickly to tumble or fragment. Rifles just were not designed to operate at the same ranges that handguns are, and shotguns are known for leaving horrific wound channels. Seeing as how blood loss is the leading cause of death in gunshot wounds, being in a situation where you aren't going to be able to receive medical attention quickly, (which is pretty standard for the average mass shooting) is a death sentence regardless of the type of firearm you were shot with. In short, there are a ton of variables, and I don't think you have the breadth or depth of knowledge or qualifications for us to take your misinformed pontifications seriously.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-16-2016 at 09:28 PM.
You fuckers need to stop making me want to agree with frigging Enoch on gun control. It's ridiculous to focus on the particular make of weapon this one nutjob happened to be using. I absolutely in favor of gun control, but the furor around the AR-15 in particular reads more as wanting to punish people for liking guns than an genuine attempt to stop the next tragedy.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
By one nutjob, do you mean four? Is it really so hard to understand that by making it that much easier to murder a lot of people, certain people will end up doing just that? Note how the nutjob in England managed to kill one person.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-15-explained/
Hope is the denial of reality
Not buying the idea that the AR-15 is this uniquely deadly firearm that needs to be obsessed over.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I am afraid you have lost me. Who exactly is focusing on outliers here?
I also think it's interesting that your source claims some states have taken it upon themselves to ban semi-automatic weapons. Which states have banned semi-automatic weapons?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-16-2016 at 09:19 PM.
So it looks like y'all are presenting increasingly persuasive reasons for banning handguns or severely restricting access to them, not sure if that was your intention
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If your goal was to put into effect a policy that might impact gun violence, handguns would be a better place to start. I don't personally believe that it would have the desired impact, but it's certainly where it would make the most sense if you were serious about the problem. What I think would be even better would be to look into the root causes of violence, which communities are disproportionately impacted and why that is. I don't support bans on any firearm, but I also don't take people seriously who choose to focus on a weapon that is among the least likely to be used criminally.So it looks like y'all are presenting increasingly persuasive reasons for banning handguns or severely restricting access to them, not sure if that was your intention
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-16-2016 at 10:01 PM.
Why don't you find the number of murders committed in the United States with a weapon that was illegally converted to be fully automatic. In fact, I'll make it even easier. What are the number of murders committed by any fully-automatic weapon, legal or illegal?
You claim that it is easy and that there is a market for these illegally converted guns, therefore it should be relatively common, right?
Pfft provided the data is reliable the answer is "almost none" in like a million decades, at least not for legal ones. Illegally modified, slightly more but infrequently in the past couple of decades.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Going by the definitions in the assault weapons ban bill that was defeated in 2013, a third (possibly more) of the guns used in your latest mass-shootings would have been deemed illegal primarily due to the inclusion of high capacity magazines. I'm not sure how much of a reduction in non-gang-related mass-shootings one might be able to expect from such a ban in the near term. I wonder how many mass-shootings may be expected to be prevented through other means that address "root causes" without addressing means.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Especially when the gun lobby has no intention of addressing root causes, like poor mental health treatment for the poor, shitty inner city education, lack of rehabilitation in jails, etc.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote