The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)

[Vergil Tanner]

Well...I'm afraid there's not much I can do in regards to how my tone comes across. I didn't intend for it to be condescending or rude, and I can't police how others perceive what I'm saying. Text is a limited medium, after all. I'll try to keep an eye on my tone in future, but I have practically no control over the tone that people see when they read what I write. I can try and police the language I use, but the tone people see when they read my posts? That's completely up to them. \_>.>_/

I mean, I originally took that whole "people like Vergil who want to ban it because they don't understand what it does and it scares them" as pretty condescending, but I ignored it and brushed it off since I assumed that wasn't how they meant it to sound. Same with me...I can try and manipulate the language to suggest a tone, but in the end, I have no control over what tone they hear since it's all about interpretation. I apologise for coming across as rude and condescending, however, and I'll do my best to try to avoid that in future.

[Mithlomwen]

I'll try to keep an eye on my tone in future....

That's all we ask.  :-)   

[Vergil Tanner]

Well, I'll do my best. But some people will be offended regardless of how I phrase things :P

[Mithlomwen]

Well, I'll do my best. But some people will be offended regardless of how I phrase things :P

Not if you take the time to re-read what you want to post before you post it, and try to look at it through another person's eyes.  There are always ways of getting your point across without offending someone.  You just have to take the time to find the right words to accomplish such. 

[Vergil Tanner]

Mmm...not always. Sometimes the burden is on the other person to look at what you've written and then go "ok, well, I've taken it this way, but is there a chance I'm overreacting or misreading?" Because I can police what I say all I like, but inevitably something I say somebody is going to take the wrong way...and in that situation, the fault is 50/50. 50 on me for not being completely clear, and 50 on them for misinterpreting. And sometimes, somebody might just be offended by my opinion on its own, absent any other phrasing...should I then apologise for having an opinion that offends them? Of course not. Thing is...what happens when you get offended? You get a bit upset and a bit angry. That's largely it, most of the time. You're going to run across things that offend you in life, and the answer isn't to fall into pieces or yell at it every single time. Sometimes you just have to deal with it and accept that not everybody is going to agree with you. Whilst it's up to me to make sure my tone isn't aggressive or confrontational or condescending, it isn't my responsibility to constantly walk on eggshells to try and avoid offending people. Because once you start saying "you can't say that, it might offend somebody!" that starts to lead down a pretty iffy road. I'll do my best to monitor my tone, but I'm not going to go out of my way to never say anything that could offend somebody...because then I'd never say anything except basic platitudes.

[Mithlomwen]

Okay, here's the deal.....and I'm going to be blunt.  As a moderator, I am telling you it is your responsibility to monitor your posts.  If what you say continues to offend too many people, as staff, it is then my responsibility to monitor your posts.  If what you say continues to offend too many people, your ability to post here could be removed. 

Hopefully that helps stress the seriousness of the situation to you. 

Now the thread has been derailed enough. 

Please carry on. 

[Vergil Tanner]

Fair enough. I'll monitor my posts as best I can, and if I offend somebody and they bring it to my attention, I'll apologise and clarify what I meant. All I was getting at is that I can't promise that I'll never offend somebody again, since - due to the personal, subjective nature of offence and the interpretive nature of text as a medium - there is a certain amount of it that's out of my control. I've already said that I'll do my best to avoid hurting other peoples feelings - I don't actually enjoy offending people; quite the opposite - I was just saying that it will probably happen sometimes due to the nature of human interaction...but I'll try to avoid it. I didn't mean to come across like I was arguing or being difficult. Thanks for the warning.

But yes...no more derailing.


So...gun control, eh? That's kinda crazy! :P

[Cycle]

Not really,

Great.  I'm looking for points where people agree.  That's one.

Honestly I think the best solution would be an actual, functional background check system at the federal level so we don't have holes and gaps all over the place that people slip through.

That's another one.  Yes, I think I can agree with that.  In fact, that's what I was getting at by asking if folks object that shows follow the same rules stores do--i.e., shows need to do background checks too.  Progress!

So, how about no purchases allowed by convicted felons?  People with outstanding arrest warrants?  People on no-fly lists?  Can we agree on these points?

[TheGlyphstone]

Great.  I'm looking for points where people agree.  That's one.

That's another one.  Yes, I think I can agree with that.  In fact, that's what I was getting at by asking if folks object that shows follow the same rules stores do--i.e., shows need to do background checks too.  Progress!

So, how about no purchases allowed by convicted felons?  People with outstanding arrest warrants?  People on no-fly lists?  Can we agree on these points?

I'm one of the people who (somewhat naively) still believes prison is meant to rehabilitate criminals, not simply distill and isolate them, so the only point I'd provisionally disagree with here is the first. Any felony conviction related to violent crime (which, IIRC, includes any crime where a weapon was used or displayed) should definitely be grounds for indefinite ban of firearms ownership, but nonviolent crimes should have a X-year limit, where X is an appropriate number for smarter people to hash out.

[Oniya]

This is where I see it getting a little dicey - sweeping statements. 

What type of felony?  Stealing a dog and making terrorist threats are both considered 'Type I felonies' in North Carolina.  I deliberately looked for the lowest 'grade' felonies I could find.  I was hoping that there would be a reasonable demarcation between 'gun danger' and 'not a gun danger'.  I would consider the terrorist threats a 'gun danger',

What type of arrest warrant? A bench warrant can be issued if you fail to appear for court when someone else rear-ends you. 

Is the no-fly list even accurate?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Honestly I think the best solution would be an actual, functional background check system at the federal level so we don't have holes and gaps all over the place that people slip through.

That's another one.  Yes, I think I can agree with that.  In fact, that's what I was getting at by asking if folks object that shows follow the same rules stores do--i.e., shows need to do background checks too.  Progress!

So, how about no purchases allowed by convicted felons?  People with outstanding arrest warrants?  People on no-fly lists?  Can we agree on these points?

Aside from no-fly list entries that's pretty much covered by the criteria of the NICS background checks run by the FBI (see FBI fact sheet here).

Where I do agree with Tairis is that the system needs to function better. But that's not just a federal problem, it is also a problem of states not reporting as much for the FBI database as they should. Mental health is a case in point. Under the current rules anyone found to be a danger to themselves or others, has been committed to a mental health institution by court order, or has been found not guilty of a crime for reason of insanity will be prohibited from buying a gun.

So far so good, but: In 2011, 19 states had no provisions that authorized or required courts and mental health institutes to report those cases to the FBI database. Other states had only vague provisions for it that led to cases were nothing was reported because no one felt responsible for it.

The good thing is, the system can actually be fixed. Federal funds have since been made available to install reporting systems were there were none, and the number of cases reported has increased, more sales to people with severe mental health problems have been blocked, and some states actually use those federal funds to go through years, sometimes decades of files to update the NICS database. There are still states that have no reporting laws for these cases in place, others that only authorize courts and mental health clinics to report relevant cases without requiring them to do so, but gaps in the background check system are being closed.

(And for those who worry that the mental health provisions restrict people's rights too much: Federal funds will only be granted if the states also have programs that allow people to petition for a restoration of their gun rights, should their circumstances change.)

The whole system could do with some improvements, but improvements should be possible if people have the will to tackle those problems and if the funds are made available to implement changes.

[eBadger]

Well, except that it never - to my knowledge - states as such. It's always talking about a regulated militia as opposed to "everybody gets a gun." Where exactly does it say that the ordinary person can have a gun unsupervised and unregulated?

The term "well-regulated" is archaic, and is better read as "properly functioning," rather than "organized and controlled."  Which is apparent from the rest of the amendment; it's silly to say that in order to control the militia we can't take away their guns. 

My apologies, but that is complete poppycock. Your "rights" end at other peoples well being.

But this works both ways: your right to safety, my right to self protection; your response is exactly the sort of dismissal of others' rights I was speaking of.  I don't think anyone is arguing that we can't take guns from people who illegally shoot others. 

NOBODY is saying "take away your firearm,"

since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons

- Automatic weapons of any kind - machine pistols, assault rifles, etc etc - should be banned.

Automatic weapons are a brilliant, shining example that regulation and background checks work: vending machines kill more people by magnitudes.  And yet cries everywhere to ban, not because of facts but because you don't feel they 'need it'.  This is the sort of thing that completely justifies the NRA extremists resisting every effort at responsible regulation, which is frustrating for those of us in the middle. 

...so? It's all about reducing the capacity to kill people. If nobody uses assault weapons, then what's the harm in banning it? But the whole thing is that banning a certain type of weapon is only one aspect of it...more than just a blanket ban on certain weapons should be implemented. And who cares if only a certain amount of people have been killed by them? There are still weapons you don't want in the public domain

Really?  'You're not using that right very much, and I don't feel comfortable with your having it, so we should take it away irregardless of what the pesky facts say'?

Also, it's not that 'assault weapons' aren't used.  It's the fact that most are bulky and more difficult to carry illegally or casually, so smaller handguns are present for more crimes of premeditation and passion. 

Just a quick note - flash suppressors don't really do all that much where the overall noticeability of the firearm is concerned, but they certainly reduce the "Ow, fuck, my eyes!" factor by quite significant extent. I've never understood that particular regulation...

*Nods* and pistol grips are purely an ergonomic comfort issue, and the placement of the magazine is simple design.  Non assault weapons fire the same bullets, at the same rate, in the same way as assault weapons. 

Question:  does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?

I've always thought the gun show thing was the height of idiocy, especially in the current age of digital records and wifi. 

IMHO gun possession (note this as distinct from ownership) should require a license (in the same way as driving) which would be obtained beforehand and would involve the background check and knowledge test (and drug test?).  Purchasing a weapon would simply require a check to ensure the license is in good standing. 

And while so-called assault weapons may only play a small part in actual gun crime, I would still say restrictions on certain types of weapons can be useful in changing attitudes, work the way seatbelt regulation did.

I don't follow your logic. 

If you ban assault weapons, then you're limiting what these shooters have access to

So you're forcing them to choose alternatives that are more likely to be used in a killing?

to the best of my knowledge - a shooter COULD pick up an AW, step into a busy street and fire off 30 bullets before anybody knew what was going on. That's thirty potential deaths. Whereas if they only had access to a standard pistol, they would maybe get four or five shots off, if that.

Again, the same bullets, at the same rate, in the same way, using the same magazines. 

And are you honestly saying that the public should be allowed to buy grenade launchers and RPG's? Really?

Not an assault weapon and already heavily regulated.  To my knowledge, nobody has ever been killed by an RPG in the US; certainly not a legally licensed one. 

I would appreciate it if you didn't strawman my position as "I don't know what they do and they look scary so I want to take away ya guns." I know exactly what the fuck these things do

I think the issue here is that, based on what you're objecting to, you don't seem to understand what an assault weapon is. 

only 13% of gun crime happens in gun free zones, so they're apparently safer (most of the time).

I hear this number a lot, and have to give it a funny look every time.  By my understanding of how much of the urban terrain comprises a 'gun free zone', that number isn't actually very impressive.  Someone correct me, or is this just one of those meaningless statistics that people use because statistics?

So, how about no purchases allowed by convicted felons?  People with outstanding arrest warrants?  People on no-fly lists?  Can we agree on these points?

I'm not entirely sure how people get on no-fly lists, but my understanding is that it can be fairly capricious.  Otherwise these seem obvious, and are justified limits on rights in the context of criminal activity. 

There could be some further interpretation, but I'd rather issues like dog stealing as a felony be addressed by changing those laws, not opening every felony to subjective review. 

Any type of warrant.  Simple bench warrants can usually be resolved fairly simply (by appearing in court as directed). 

[Cycle]

The whole system could do with some improvements, but improvements should be possible if people have the will to tackle those problems and if the funds are made available to implement changes.

I'm not entirely sure how people get on no-fly lists, but my understanding is that it can be fairly capricious.  Otherwise these seem obvious, and are justified limits on rights in the context of criminal activity.

There could be some further interpretation, but I'd rather issues like dog stealing as a felony be addressed by changing those laws, not opening every felony to subjective review. 

Any type of warrant.  Simple bench warrants can usually be resolved fairly simply (by appearing in court as directed). 

*nods*  To me, this kind of dialog is helpful.  Progress!  Instead of trying to tackle the everything at once, we go step by step.  Lots of good points being raised.  All positive, constructive too.  Fine tuning.  Really, if we tried, I bet we can find a compromise that works instead of just arguing why each other is "wrong."  Alas, if only lawmakers will talk this way.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Alright, so if we are actually agreeing on some points, how about this:

Currently guns can (and will usually) be sold if the background check through the FBI's NICS system takes more than 3 days. While more than 90% of background checks (if I remember the statistics correctly) take only a few minutes, there are still many cases that take some time to resolve.

From 2010 to 2014 there were more than 15,000 cases (an average of about 3,150 per year) where the background check did eventually turn up information that would have precluded the sale of the gun, but the gun sale had already happened. (I think in those cases the FBI hands the case over to the ATF in form of a "request to retrieve", but how long those take to process and what the usual outcome is, i.e. how many of those guns are actually retrieved ... no idea.)

There are states that have similar rules but with longer wait periods, and some states completely rule out the sale unless and until the background check is completed.

Shouldn't the checks through the federal system also be extended? Would it be so bad for the 10% who don't have their background check resolved within minutes to wait ... say, up to 14 days? And just think about the money that might be saved if the ATF didn't have to go after so many guns that shouldn't have been sold in the first place.

[Oniya]

Alright, so if we are actually agreeing on some points, how about this:

Currently guns can (and will usually) be sold if the background check through the FBI's NICS system takes more than 3 days. While more than 90% of background checks (if I remember the statistics correctly) take only a few minutes, there are still many cases that take some time to resolve.

From 2010 to 2014 there were more than 15,000 cases (an average of about 3,150 per year) where the background check did eventually turn up information that would have precluded the sale of the gun, but the gun sale had already happened. (I think in those cases the FBI hands the case over to the ATF in form of a "request to retrieve", but how long those take to process and what the usual outcome is, i.e. how many of those guns are actually retrieved ... no idea.)

There are states that have similar rules but with longer wait periods, and some states completely rule out the sale unless and until the background check is completed.

Shouldn't the checks through the federal system also be extended? Would it be so bad for the 10% who don't have their background check resolved within minutes to wait ... say, up to 14 days? And just think about the money that might be saved if the ATF didn't have to go after so many guns that shouldn't have been sold in the first place.

Or - what if there was both a minimum and a maximum time between purchase and delivery?  Brady-law minimum of three days to cover the impulse purchase, and background check max of 14 days, but if the background check comes in definitively clear at any time before the 14, they only have to wait the three days (assuming that's not already passed). Gun store gets the all-clear, calls the customer, says 'Come on down to pick up your Glock (or whatever).'

[Cassandra LeMay]

Or - what if there was both a minimum and a maximum time between purchase and delivery?  Brady-law minimum of three days to cover the impulse purchase, and background check max of 14 days, but if the background check comes in definitively clear at any time before the 14, they only have to wait the three days (assuming that's not already passed). Gun store gets the all-clear, calls the customer, says 'Come on down to pick up your Glock (or whatever).'

I don't see how a minimum wait of 3 days would improve things. If you have a minimum wait of 3 days you'd have a hard time applying background checks to guns shows and other sales outside a store. A minimum wait would pretty much rule out any sale at gun shows and I don't see how background checks could possibly be extended to gun shows under those provisions. It would prevent gun sales at gun shows and passing legislation that restricts the business that much is not at all likely to be passed. Better to introduce background checks for gun show sales and private sales, because they actually do reduce firearms murder (and suicide). Best to keep that door open, IMO.

[Cycle]

(I think in those cases the FBI hands the case over to the ATF in form of a "request to retrieve", but how long those take to process and what the usual outcome is, i.e. how many of those guns are actually retrieved ... no idea.)

Stray thought:  if someone developed an app to do this, they could be rich...

"Siri, run a NICS background check on Cycle."  ;D

[Oniya]

I don't see how a minimum wait of 3 days would improve things. If you have a minimum wait of 3 days you'd have a hard time applying background checks to guns shows and other sales outside a store. A minimum wait would pretty much rule out any sale at gun shows and I don't see how background checks could possibly be extended to gun shows under those provisions. It would prevent gun sales at gun shows and passing legislation that restricts the business that much is not at all likely to be passed. Better to introduce background checks for gun show sales and private sales, because they actually do reduce firearms murder (and suicide). Best to keep that door open, IMO.

I thought that there was already a minimum wait?  I basically didn't want to remove an existing precaution if one existed.

[Mithlomwen]

Stray thought:  if someone developed an app to do this, they could be rich...

"Siri, run a NICS background check on Cycle."  ;D

Two words...

Abby Sciuto

/derail

*flees* 

[Cassandra LeMay]

I thought that there was already a minimum wait?  I basically didn't want to remove an existing precaution if one existed.

Oh no. There is no minimum wait, at least not for federal background checks. I am not sure if there are any states have have different legislation, but the FBI background check is just a database search that can be done in a matter of minutes.

[Oniya]

Okay then.  I withdraw the minimum time, then.  (You can tell how often I purchase firearms.  :D )

[Cycle]

Two words...

Abby Sciuto

/derail

*flees*

Ooooh.

Plot bunny!!!

[Vergil Tanner]

Alright, I'd love to respond to you eBadger and I have a lot to say on this matter, but work has me absolutely swamped at the moment (just got off a nine hour shift and it's currently almost 1am, and I have to work until 2am for the next two nights) and I just don't have the time or energy to keep posting in this discussion. I might pop back in when things calm down for me, but at the moment between posting in my RP's, keeping up with friends and finding time to relax around work...I just can't do the really long posts that I usually do....so I'm temporarily stepping out of this discussion until things calm down. See ya guys! :D

[Tairis]

Many states have minimum wait times, usually 3 days. Those wait times are often waived if you have a concealed carry or active duty law enforcement since both involve much more extensive recording and background checks already.

I would appreciate it if you didn't strawman my position as "I don't know what they do and they look scary so I want to take away ya guns." I know exactly what the fuck these things do, I know how dangerous and scary ALL guns are, I just think that certain types are overkill for what they're given to the public for and COULD cause huge levels of death and damage if they fell into the wrong hands...so they should be banned because they're just more dangerous on an individual level than pistols. Automatic weapons also includes machine pistols, by the way. What would have happened, do you think, if the Virginia shooter had had a machine pistol instead, hm?

This is the problem with your argument. You say 'I know exactly what these things do', but then you keep making statements that show that you do not know what they do or even what current laws and regulations are.

Leveling a city block? A hand grenade for example has an effective lethal radius of 15 meters, so roughly the length of a city bus. That's a pretty big area, but it's not a city block. RPGs? I'm going to assume you mean the stereotypical russian shoulder mounted rocket launcher since that's what most people see in video games and movies: less than half that, 7 meters. All deadly weapons, but designed for military applications. If someone just wants to kill people they're literally better off building a bomb with basic instructions from the internet and things they can buy from Home Depot.

And after all of that the reality is that these items (generally referred to as incendiary or explosive devices) are already heavily regulated. There is no gunstore you can go into and pick up an RPG-7 off the shelf.

Gun-Free Zones... so 13% of crime happens in a gun-free zone (assuming this is correct, just going with it). So more than 1 and 10 crimes happen in a gun-free zone. If one and ten burglaries happened in a 'door lock free' zone would that somehow be a good statistic for removing all door locks?

Also how are you enforcing the gun free zone? Are you going to invest billions of dollars for metal detectors, full time employees, and training for every one of these gun free zones? Because otherwise they're just quaint signs on a door. I know I ignore them every time I go to the movies or the mall because I have no interest in being disarmed by a little yellow placard that will be equally ignored by anyone that is actually meaning to do harm.

And then we get into assault weapons, which is the word you keep using. Can you actually define an 'assault weapon' for me? Because as far as I know the term has never been defined. The 90s assault weapons ban was a completely random selection of guns that were entirely chosen based upon public knowledge and how 'military' they looked.

Hi capacity magazines and automatic weapons? Have you ever wondered, if these 50 and 100 round magazines are such 'machines of death' why the US Military doesn't equip all of our soldiers with them? It's because they're generally terrible. They jam with regularity and tend to result in their users missing more than they hit.

Elliot Rodgers? He was using normal handguns with basic ten round magazines. Look at the list of spree killings in the United States (which is, indeed, too damn many) and what you'll find? Most of them are not perpetrated by guys like Holmes wearing full body armor with 100 round magazines. Most of them are people with normal, off the shelf guns. Normal remington hunting rifles, glock 9mm pistols, etc. In the Aurora shooting the fact that Holmes was using one of those 100 mags probably meant less people died because it jammed with over 1/3 of the magazine still in it.

Finally your 'gun license' idea? I'm actually all for universal background checks and such. But half the things you want to implement? Already exist. Which is why people usually don't take these arguments seriously. Most the people arguing for gun control aren't even aware of the laws they are trying to change.

The fact of the matter is you cannot stop someone that wants to kill people in mass as long as guns exist, and there is way to get rid of them all. These ideas that somehow one less round in the chamber or banning pistol grips, or any of the rest are just ways for politicians to make it look like they're doing something just like the TSA. If you want to stop spree killings then the only way to do that is to stop them BEFORE there is ever an attack.

[LisztesFerenc]

Because otherwise they're just quaint signs on a door. I know I ignore them every time I go to the movies or the mall because I have no interest in being disarmed by a little yellow placard that will be equally ignored by anyone that is actually meaning to do harm.

  So you break the law and you're proud of it? Unless I'm mistaken, the cinemas are privately owned, and so ignoring those signs isn't your right, you are breaking the law by entering a company's property whilst refusing to abide with their request.