You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 02:22:57 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Charleston Shooting  (Read 3048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #100 on: June 26, 2015, 09:26:18 AM »
On another gun note a new study came out onthe statistics of gun defense.  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/

This was mentioned earlier in the thread and I still think the evidence isn't as definitive as some are trying to claim it is.

The study tracks justifiable homicides but it doesn't include statistics on what I guess we could call "justifiable assaults" with firearms; situations where someone was justified in shooting someone else but didn't kill them. Likewise it didn't include situations where someone prevented a crime by drawing a gun. Without those it paints at best a lopsided picture of the use of guns in self defense.

To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #101 on: June 26, 2015, 11:49:21 AM »
I will retract a former statement on him and indeed relate his actions as 'terrorism.' Terrorism as it was an attempt to spark a racial war after the motives within the manifesto made his agenda clear.

This indeed.  +1.

He was as much a terrorist as Timothy McVeigh - and to be honest, if the term had been around when Charles Manson was taken down, I'd've called 'Helter Skelter' an act of terrorism for trying to incite a race war.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #102 on: June 26, 2015, 12:19:40 PM »
But if parentals were smart and kept guns locked away or out of reach, than that would of never happened. I would blame bad parenting over guns in those cases. Also, accidental discharges are bound to happen if a gun is loaded(in the sense a bullet is already cocked in the chamber.) I don't see how a gun is just going to randomly go off with just a magazine in it. I don't even keep a live round in the barrels for that reason.
I'd blame lax gun laws at least partially. Even by our standards, something like that is extremely rare here - because people know better than to store weapons loaded and unlocked, as a rule.

Regulations and restrictions perhaps, but I am against outright banning of gun ownership to law-abiding citizens. Civilizans without guns may sound appealing, although I am more worried about the government incorporating Martial Law or even the states being invaded by a foreign country. Oh, thanks a lot government, take away our weapons so we can't now protect ourselves from tyranny.
Again: Civilians with no combat training or organization are not going to be effective against their own nation's military without support, and for foreign invasions, you have a ridiculously huge military with an even more ridiculously huge arsenal ating as both deterrent and active defense. Why do people cling so hard to the Red Dawn fantasy?

I read it, not much I can comment there. However the means of an end I will say is that owning a gun within a household still adds that sense of security. Maybe not everyone will use it, but it is there in case one does. Also, a good faction of Americans use firearms for hunting as well. I was given a gun for hunting at a young age(14-16, I forgot, but may of been sixteen birthday) and I never went around shooting up any schools or churches. I have friends who hunt as well that had firearms at similar ages. All of which were taught the values and importance of a weapon that it isn't a 'toy,' that it can harm or kill someone; and the only living creatures I ever pointed it at were deer with the intention for food. I have never hunted for sport and do not believe in such either.
A false sense of security is actively harmful compared to no precaution at all.

Actually, it is a racist war. If you read his manifesto that I posted somewhere here(if it didn't get deleted from the website it was posted again on since the original website to his manifesto was taken down.) Basically he thought blacks were horrible individuals of a majority of crime induced actions. Which after reading a good portion of said manifesto, I will retract a former statement on him and indeed relate his actions as 'terrorism.' Terrorism as it was an attempt to spark a racial war after the motives within the manifesto made his agenda clear.
I'm p. sure that was intended as sarcasm - Fox and the other usual suspects have been trying to paint it as anything-but-racism, which includes a lot of "We'll never know why! It's not like he prepared a written statement or gave statements directly to police!" and a lot of "Shot up a church? Let us climb over this pile of dead black people to declare that it was obviously targeting Christianity!"

Offline DiscoveringEzra

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #103 on: June 26, 2015, 05:47:51 PM »
This was mentioned earlier in the thread and I still think the evidence isn't as definitive as some are trying to claim it is.

The study tracks justifiable homicides but it doesn't include statistics on what I guess we could call "justifiable assaults" with firearms; situations where someone was justified in shooting someone else but didn't kill them. Likewise it didn't include situations where someone prevented a crime by drawing a gun. Without those it paints at best a lopsided picture of the use of guns in self defense.

To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.

Yes i understand that, but even if we added those variables it wont stop it from being a very low number. Its at 0.8% how many recalculations should it be given  to disprove that the gun defense augment isnt as correct as people claim it is.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" NRA chief LaPierre. People are treating these situations as if their Steven Sagall action movies. They wanted to arm teachers after Sandy Hook, now they want to arm Church officials.The statistics wouldn't be close to high enough for that to be a good idea.

Sorry for my horrible grammar and punctuation I no longer have a computer and my tab is a pain i  the ass to correct things on. i just cant with till i have the money to build myself a good PC.*Sigh*

Offline Zakharra

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #104 on: June 26, 2015, 09:33:26 PM »
So when you said "Government CANNOT restrict these rights", you meant "I don't want government to restrict these rights, but it would be absolutely within established precedent to do so.
Two objections. One: Australia is a much closer fit to the US situation than Brazil, in both history with guns (and original view of them as a right) and the factors that actually prevent government tyranny - concept of "rule of law" and desire to be legitimate in the eyes of its people and its potential allies and trading partners.

Two: I have consistently said "tightly regulated", not "disarmed". I live in a nation where there are 30 weapons per 100 people, closer to the US end of the scale than Brazil. I have zero issues with this.
I am saying that hunting rifles, no matter how good, will never be able to significantly threaten two entire branches of the military. There's no realistic scenario in which you take down a jet or a destroyer with a hunting rifle. Either the military defects, in which case civilian ordnance is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case civilian ordnance is nowhere near what's needed to establish control. And you seem to forget that rights are human cosntructions, as valid for renegotiation and reconstruction as any other. This particular right has been altered in US society already.  You've witnessed a sea change on the question of whether marriage is a human right.
So follow the chain of logic: Illegal guns being primarily and heavily sourced from thefts of legal weapons in private citizens' hands means that the less weapons tehre are in private citizens' hands, the smaller the pool of illegal guns. The tighter the regulations on how your guns must be secured and where you can bring them, the smaller the percentage of legally owned guns enters the black market, the smaller the pool of illegal weapons.
My view is not "deny citizens weapons under any and all circumstances, then arm the police heavily and give them minimal oversight and a culture of violence and bribery", so you're a bit off there. And... are you saying there's a significant difference in how guns are viewed in modern America and how they were viewed in early-90s Australia, before they decided that dead kids were more important than some Red Dawn fantasy? America isn't the only nation with rights and a Constitution that enshrines them; I'm familiar with the concept because I live it. However, you're absolutely and completely wrong on saying the government can not change what rights you have. There is actually a step-by-step procedure for exactly how it should do so. In fact, the only reason this right exists is that the government followed the procedure for changing your rights and added it.


I hate to sound like a broken record, but the real-world examples we have of essentially open democratic regimes like the US tightly restricting guns show that it does in fact help to solve the problem of people getting murdered.


 I'd rather they didn't after the sentence was served. Obviously someone with a life sentence isn't going to be out of prison anytime soon so they aren't going to be able to exercise many of their rights. After the sentence was served though, the rights should be restored.

 Australia is also an island continent onto itself. It has no land borders with anyone else. that alone will make a difference.

So because 'hunting rifles' are useless against a modern military, all firearms should be regulated/removed from civilian hands/ownership since it won't help them anyways? Sorry. I am not buying that for an instant. I do not consider human rights renegotiable. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights especially. Those are rights specifically listed in the Constitution that the government isn't supposed to tough or infringe upon.  That you think they should be is disturbing. If one Right can be removed, ANY of them can be by the legal framework you just set up. That's not a good scenario to be following.

  Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft? I am doubting the validity of that. If it was true, the left/Democrat party would be literally pounding that 'fact' on the news and all over in their drive to disarm the American population. You say your aim isn't to disarm the American population, but everything you say points right at that since you do want to regulate, heavily, who can and cannot own any firearm.

 Rights, especially the ones in the US Constitution aren't something the US government SHOULD be able to change. Only the people of the US can change the Constitution, and that by a 2/3s vote of both houses and ratification by 2/3 or more of the states, or a 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of the states can vote on it and change the Constitution that way too. Without that, the government should be completely powerless to do ANYthing to infringe upon the Constitution.
 And unlike any other nation, the right to own and bear arms (a term that is left vague since it means weapon) is a right for US citizens. As I understand it, in every other nation, it's a privilege, not a right. That is a notable and distinct difference. Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot (or should not be)


 
Quote
Again: Civilians with no combat training or organization are not going to be effective against their own nation's military without support, and for foreign invasions, you have a ridiculously huge military with an even more ridiculously huge arsenal ating as both deterrent and active defense. Why do people cling so hard to the Red Dawn fantasy?

 It's not clinging to the Red Dawn fantasy. It will be statistically harder to invade or disarm a population that is armed, then to invade a nation where the population that isn't armed. Do you think that the hunting rifles you disparagingly dismiss won't have -any- effect? Or the handguns, shotguns and other firearms we are legally allowed to have won't have an effect? According to you, non-modern military weapons = useless against military. Hence that seems to be one of your justifications to heavily regulate all firearms and remove the Second Amendment.

 
 
 

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #105 on: June 26, 2015, 10:12:01 PM »
I'd rather they didn't after the sentence was served. Obviously someone with a life sentence isn't going to be out of prison anytime soon so they aren't going to be able to exercise many of their rights. After the sentence was served though, the rights should be restored.
So yes, government can and has limited or stripped these rights before. Glad we cleared that up.

Australia is also an island continent onto itself. It has no land borders with anyone else. that alone will make a difference.
What difference, exactly? Be specific, please. (Zero points for guessing which direction the overwhelming amount of firearms trafficking across US borders flows.)

So because 'hunting rifles' are useless against a modern military, all firearms should be regulated/removed from civilian hands/ownership since it won't help them anyways? Sorry. I am not buying that for an instant. I do not consider human rights renegotiable. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights especially. Those are rights specifically listed in the Constitution that the government isn't supposed to tough or infringe upon.  That you think they should be is disturbing. If one Right can be removed, ANY of them can be by the legal framework you just set up. That's not a good scenario to be following.
Objections in order of importance:

0. What happens when someone's right to own a gun conflicts to somebody else's right to, y'know, live?
1. Like it or not, rights are negotiable. The US Bill of Rights didn't magically appear one day.
2. I didn't set up the legal framework, and it's not new. The very right to own guns was established in this fashion. There is precedent for this dating back two hundred and twenty-four years.
3. My argument is not that thefact that they won't make a difference means they should be removed. It is that "They can be used in this situation!" is not a justification, because they don't matter in that context.

Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft? I am doubting the validity of that. If it was true, the left/Democrat party would be literally pounding that 'fact' on the news and all over in their drive to disarm the American population. You say your aim isn't to disarm the American population, but everything you say points right at that since you do want to regulate, heavily, who can and cannot own any firearm.
...hm. I'm sorry; this was something I remembered reading in a news article some time ago but cannot find solid stats to back up. (Apparently, if you can believe this, the ATF is not permitted to release much data on weapon source traces.) Withdrawn.

Rights, especially the ones in the US Constitution aren't something the US government SHOULD be able to change. Only the people of the US can change the Constitution, and that by a 2/3s vote of both houses and ratification by 2/3 or more of the states, or a 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of the states can vote on it and change the Constitution that way too. Without that, the government should be completely powerless to do ANYthing to infringe upon the Constitution.
You argued against yourself here. Either government action can change the constitution or it cannot. Choose one. (And again, I'll note that wishing doesn't make it so; the government routinely restricts or removes private citizens' access to weapons without a consitutional amendment.)

And unlike any other nation, the right to own and bear arms (a term that is left vague since it means weapon) is a right for US citizens. As I understand it, in every other nation, it's a privilege, not a right. That is a notable and distinct difference. Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot (or should not be)
...except when they are, or they are renegotiated or redefined, a thing that happens all the time. Today, for instance. This is something government does all the time, and the magic word "right" does not change that fact.

It's not clinging to the Red Dawn fantasy. It will be statistically harder to invade or disarm a population that is armed, then to invade a nation where the population that isn't armed. Do you think that the hunting rifles you disparagingly dismiss won't have -any- effect? Or the handguns, shotguns and other firearms we are legally allowed to have won't have an effect? According to you, non-modern military weapons = useless against military. Hence that seems to be one of your justifications to heavily regulate all firearms and remove the Second Amendment.
I think it'll add to the body count, but not appreciably affect the final outcome. Iraq ranks #7 in the world for guns per capita and had a number of organized resistance movements. How much difference did that make to the outcome?

Offline Caehlim

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2015, 09:11:07 AM »
Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft?

I know you're not asking me, but these statistics seem to be what you're looking for.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (Link)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2015, 09:18:45 AM by Caehlim »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2015, 09:56:55 AM »
     I was curious too, and found this PBS report quick. 

     This particular report is feeling rather old by now (supporting stats page says 1994-1996), but the straw purchases mentioned as a central concern have remained significant: In the 2014 Supreme Court case where the Court refused to allow third party buying of guns on others' behalf, Justice Kagan mentioned that around half of the ATF's weapons trafficking cases involve straw purchases.

    The quoted portion below is about half of the summary on the PBS website.  (Bolding is mine.)

Quote
Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2015, 10:12:36 AM »
All right. I was incorrect on that point. Thanks for the info, folks.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2015, 11:14:44 AM »
It does look like about 1/3 of the guns were obtained through some sort of criminal activity - 9% theft/burglary, 9% fence/black market, and 15% drug dealer.  I suppose there could be some regression done as to how the drug dealer and black market dealer obtained them (A fence, by definition sells stolen goods, but I suppose that some of the others might have been obtained 'legitimately'), but that's still a good chunk of the pie.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #110 on: June 30, 2015, 11:17:04 AM »
So yes, government can and has limited or stripped these rights before. Glad we cleared that up.

 I'd rather it didn't.  However you're advocating removing/restricting it for everyone. That is one hell of an escalation. From a tiny minority of people to everyone. Big difference there.

Quote
What difference, exactly? Be specific, please. (Zero points for guessing which direction the overwhelming amount of firearms trafficking across US borders flows.)
Objections in order of importance:

0. What happens when someone's right to own a gun conflicts to somebody else's right to, y'know, live?
1. Like it or not, rights are negotiable. The US Bill of Rights didn't magically appear one day.
2. I didn't set up the legal framework, and it's not new. The very right to own guns was established in this fashion. There is precedent for this dating back two hundred and twenty-four years.
3. My argument is not that thefact that they won't make a difference means they should be removed. It is that "They can be used in this situation!" is not a justification, because they don't matter in that context.

 0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.
 1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.
 2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.
 3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.


 
Quote
You argued against yourself here. Either government action can change the constitution or it cannot. Choose one. (And again, I'll note that wishing doesn't make it so; the government routinely restricts or removes private citizens' access to weapons without a consitutional amendment.)

 The Bill of Rights is something the government isn't supposed to touch. and the method of  amending the Constitution is supposed to be hard so it cannot be changed easily by a small group of people.

 
Quote
...except when they are, or they are renegotiated or redefined, a thing that happens all the time. Today, for instance. This is something government does all the time, and the magic word "right" does not change that fact.

 No. The rights aren't renegotiated and I am sure that the left/Democrats in the US would love to redefine the 2nd amendment to remove/restrict the average person's ability to own firearms. They'd also like to restrict a number of other rights too. Although to be fair, the other side will do much the same, but the system is set up that it's damned hard to pull the wool over peoples eyes and you will have people who will passionately defend ALL of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, without exception.

Quote
I think it'll add to the body count, but not appreciably affect the final outcome. Iraq ranks #7 in the world for guns per capita and had a number of organized resistance movements. How much difference did that make to the outcome?

 It makes it a lot more expensive for anyone trying to take over an area, and makes it a lot easier to 'acquire' better military equipment from any invaders. Which will make it even more expensive militarily for the invaders. Without firearms, just getting to the first step is a lot harder and I fail to see why people should always have to depend upon the police or military to defend themselves when they need help -now-. In the cities and countryside the response by police is likely not going to be fast, and when you need help now, by the time the police do arrive, it's more than likely too late.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 11:33:40 AM by Zakharra »

Offline Aethereal

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #111 on: June 30, 2015, 01:33:25 PM »
Quote
To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.
         This. Most of the times guns are successfully used for self-defence, there might not even be a singe shot fired.
       For complete picture, all non-gun-related crimes should also be taken into account.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #112 on: June 30, 2015, 02:16:55 PM »
Quote from: Zakharra
0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.
      So, would you prefer to fight lunatics who bring high-powered rifles and automatic weapons, as opposed to lunatics who say, could only get their hands on smaller-magazine pistols? 

      Ironically, the South Carolina experience has apparently been that the gun lobby (or at least its following) has chosen well, specifically the arming of the mentally ill (who they also love to blame!) along with everyone else:

Quote from: The Economist June 2015
Gun fans have also said, as they always do, that the root cause of gun massacres is mental illness, not guns. As it happens in 2013 Mr Pinckney introduced a bill in the state Senate that would have obliged firearms dealers to conduct background checks and interviews to establish the mental state of someone trying to buy an assault rifle. It went nowhere.

Quote from: Zakharra
1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.
     The implementation does change throughout history.  There certainly IS negotiation!  (And conflict, and revision, and expansion.)  The right to vote was moot for Blacks, and then for women (and not everywhere in that same order actually) because those groups were rarely actually considered and treated as equal by American society until much later.  The founders didn't have to build in italics saying "[all people except...]," but others did come along through history and negotiate and add and dicker.  The 2nd Amendment was a product of negotiation, and the repeal of Prohibition was a product of experience and negotiation too.  The notion that a right to pursuit of happiness and liberty includes a right to marry a partner of one's choice, and that choice is including potentially someone of the same sex, has just now been formally written into the history of Constitutional interpretation by Kennedy.  On and on. 

      And to the point, as it's conveniently left out constantly:  That Second Ammendment says on the condition that one is part of a well-regulated militia.  Now how many people have been trying to change that

     Even this very pro-guns website finally admits, the foundation of the National Guard basically rendered earlier citizen militias obsolete in the eyes of federal law. 

(All the bolding in various sites quoted below is mine.) 

Quote from: Partnering with Eagles
The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which made the provisions of the 1792 act permanent.
These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States. 

      Perhaps you might argue the entire establishment of the National Guard and all the 20th century foreign wars maybe, were often or all moves that abused the nation and undid Washington's great intent not to be involved anywhere else in the process.  (Indeed, I passed one very pro-gun website that argued this sort of "We are already one long history of federal government bulge and takeover.") 

      However, if you want to continue to argue on the basis of existing law and the apparent intent of laws attempting to have any sort of organized militia (which the 2nd Amendment explicitly includes) and specifically for explicit purposes of national defense (which you have already insisted at some length, should be a good explanation for all these guns we have now sprinkled throughout the population)?  Then, here's what I can gather so far: 

       I took a quick look at that 1903 law, variously called the Militia Act or the Dick Act.  It does include just one early mention of some secondary "reserve militia."  But as far as I can tell from Section 23 (I actually see no other mention of the same specific term Reserve Militia outside the introduction), any further reserves for use against invasion were also only to be drawn from people with prior formal military training and then certified by the central government as actually being raised and organized for immediate use. 

      This does not sound to me like the sorts of arguments being made today against gun control generally.  The arguments being made today are more that basically anyone is allowed to buy semi-automatic (and sometimes even easily modified to automatic) weapons, in many cases in situations where it's patently obvious that the existing "regulations" do not even always lead to enforcement of background checks.  You can see the text that at least at a quick read, seems most pertinent to me below.

The Militia Act includes this language:

Quote from: The Militia Act (1903)
Sec. 3.  That the regularly enlisted, organized, and uniformed active militia in the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia who have heretofore participated or shall hereafter participate in the apportionment of the annual appropriation provided by section sixteen hundred and sixty-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended, whether known and designated as National Guard, militia, or otherwise, shall constitute the organized militia. The organization, armament, and discipline of the organized militia in the several States and Territories and in the District of Columbia shall be the same as that which is now or may hereafter be prescribed for the Regular and Volunteer-Armies of the United States...

Sec. 23. That for the purpose of securing a list of persons specially qualified to hold commissions in any volunteer force which may hereafter be called for and organized under the authority of Congress, other than a force composed of organized militia, the Secretary of War is authorized from time to time to convene boards of officers at suitable and convenient army posts in different parts of the United States, who shall examine as to their qualifications for the command of troops or for the performance, of staff duties all applicants who shall have served in the Regular Army of the United States, in any of the volunteer forces of the United States, or in the organized militia of any State or Territory or District of Columbia, or who, being a citizen of the United States, shall have attended or pursued a regular course of instruction in any military school or college of the United States Army, or shall have graduated from any educational institution to which an officer of the Army or Navy has been detailed as superintendent or professor pursuant to law after having creditably pursued the course of military instruction therein provided.

      Edit here:  To be fair, there is some mention that the Secretary could pick from "any of the volunteer forces," but with that being situated alongside "the Regular Army" I have to wonder if it doesn't mean simply, the professional, i.e. basically by now service branches (non-drafted standing force "plus any emergency trainees" and therefore volunteer, I'm guessing) like the Navy or Coast Guard, etc.  Though I'm not yet 100% clear, to be completely fair.  In any case, no one gets deployed for national defense simply by claiming to be citizen militia and the professional military and the Guard are now much, much more central to national defense strategy as this shows.

------------------------------------------

Quote from: Zakharra
2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.
     Intentionallly vague, yes yes.  If they didn't say it, then no one can ever touch it?  Surely they intended everyone to have nuclear weapons too.  You haven't given any better reasons for or against any particular weapons here than the founders did.  And you happen to have the benefit of living in an age when we're very capable of imagining the effects of automatic rifles, plastic explosive, and everything on up to nukes.  The founders were not.

    Well, trying very hard to be fair again:  I do agree a few hunting rifles might irritate an occupying force, but I see very little imminent threat of occupation and I really don't see that as a good reason to leave gun laws just the way they are now.  There's a whole lot of stuff not so useful for hunting anything but people, turning up on school campuses.  Unless you're trying for mandatory military training, I don't see how encouraging every too-often drunken college frat boy to pack his own weapon in response is going to stop them either. 

Quote from: Zakharra
3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.
      A meat cleaver can kill but we don't ban them.  A rock can kill but we don't see many mass murders involving them.  Are you seriously going to argue that there is as much danger from all other weapons as there is from guns, if the semi-auto rifles and upward were better controlled?  If so, then I don't see that you've made that argument very thoroughly at all yet.  But I have to admit, on this particular number I'm also not completely clear on just what kind of proposal you and Ephiral are arguing about...  If in fact it's even the same thing.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 02:58:16 PM by kylie »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #113 on: June 30, 2015, 05:00:07 PM »
I'd rather it didn't.  However you're advocating removing/restricting it for everyone. That is one hell of an escalation. From a tiny minority of people to everyone. Big difference there.

 0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.
Why is murder the only crime it's unacceptable to take even the most basic preventative measures for?
1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.
Um... I hate to be the one to tell you this, but... it kinda is, which is exactly why UN members routinely violate it.
2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.
You are ignoring my point to simply reassert yours. The very right you're talking about? Was an amendment. If government should not alter Constitutional rights despite there being a process for it to do so, then the right to bear arms should not exist. You cannot simultaneously say that government cannot alter rights and support a right it created through that alteration process.
3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.
Easy? No, not really. My preference is for justified access - ie, before we give you push-button lethal force, you need some sort of reason for it. I'd gladly settle for even a modicum of oversight as a good first step, though. You keep talking about "responsible" gun owners; to me, having someone at some level who actually knows whose hands a given weapon is in is the minimum responsibility we should be talking about for lethal force. But... that would mean changing your beloved status quo.

The Bill of Rights is something the government isn't supposed to touch. and the method of  amending the Constitution is supposed to be hard so it cannot be changed easily by a small group of people.
If government isn't supposed to touch it, why is there an amendment process? Why are the rights themselves amendments? And no, I never said it was easy - but at some point you have to look at the mounting pile of dead bodies and maybe conclude that had things are worth doing too.

No. The rights aren't renegotiated and I am sure that the left/Democrats in the US would love to redefine the 2nd amendment to remove/restrict the average person's ability to own firearms. They'd also like to restrict a number of other rights too. Although to be fair, the other side will do much the same, but the system is set up that it's damned hard to pull the wool over peoples eyes and you will have people who will passionately defend ALL of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, without exception.
Flatly denying reality doesn't make it any less true. A new right was created in the US on the day I posted what you were responding to. For that matter, the second amendment itself is no longer interpreted by the courts as written! Rights are redefined and renegotiated literally all the time. They are, like the entire social contract, a consensus. They might be an important consensus, and I'll gladly accept that certain things do need to be basic rights to have a functional society. I don't see any evidence that "being able to own as much lethal force as I want without anybody having any clue until the shooting starts" is on that list, and I certainly don't see why even a large number of people claiming that right should outweigh a relatively small number of other people's right to live.

See... here's the thing: There will always be bad actors. That's just a fundamental fact. Giving those bad actors easy access to lethal force just ups the scale of their actions. By asserting a right to own guns, you are inherently saying that this right is more important than some people's lives. The less restricted you make it, the larger the pile of "acceptable casualties" grows.

It makes it a lot more expensive for anyone trying to take over an area, and makes it a lot easier to 'acquire' better military equipment from any invaders. Which will make it even more expensive militarily for the invaders. Without firearms, just getting to the first step is a lot harder and I fail to see why people should always have to depend upon the police or military to defend themselves when they need help -now-. In the cities and countryside the response by police is likely not going to be fast, and when you need help now, by the time the police do arrive, it's more than likely too late.
Your theory doesn't match the facts: Iraq had significant numbers of civilian weapons and organized resistance groups. How well did that go for them? How much hardware did they capture?

As for "police won['t get there soon enough": Exactly what are the chances that you are going to need police right now, not one minute from now, for a situation that doesn't involve a gun? Exactly what situation do you think would be improved by random civilians opening fire on whatever they think is the threat, with no training, no coordination, and no way to distinguish each other from hostiles? How likely do you think such situations are, as compared to the rather huge amount of gun-related violence and death happening now?

Thye right to own lethal force is inherently in conflict with the right to live. The case must be made that the former is more important or more relevant to daily life. I don't see that it's either.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #114 on: June 30, 2015, 05:11:34 PM »
My preference is for justified access - ie, before we give you push-button lethal force, you need some sort of reason for it.

Just to offer an Australian perspective here.

I helped my friend study for his firearms license. In order to qualify he had to take a test on how to safely handle, operate and transport a firearm. He applied for one on the basis of doing competitive shooting at the local firing range. As long as he attends a competition at least once every six months, he's able to renew his license. There are several other recognized reasons for owning a firearm but that's the easiest one. Because of that license, so long as he has a gun safe in which to keep it, he would be allowed to purchase and keep a gun in his house. (He hasn't yet, but he would be permitted to if he wanted).

This really doesn't seem all that strange to me, but perhaps it's just a cultural values thing.

Offline Aethereal

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #115 on: June 30, 2015, 05:26:01 PM »
Quote
Are you seriously going to argue that there is as much danger from all other weapons as there is from guns?
        How do you define "danger"? Only bombings tend to outrank shootings in people killed at once, but if we include serial killers in general and solitary killings, guns don't seem half as favored. Shootings (in this instance to be distinguished from people being shot in general) and bombings as such tend to be far and few between, isolated cases.

        For the record, I advocate guns being available for everyone as long as they are mentally stable, have no history of unjustified violence, and can prove that they know how to handle and store guns properly. (Things like "I dropped a gun and it went off" shouldn't happen - guns are pretty much made to be perfectly safe to drop. And obviously you keep them with safety on and away from small children.) I also support having repercussions for not reporting a gun stolen should you ever find yours missing and someone goes and does something with it...
        So yeah. Gun licenses that are easy enough to obtain as long as you meet the requirements are the way to go.

        Additional clauses like
Quote
As long as he attends a competition at least once every six months, he's able to renew his license.
shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

        (Note: I am not in the US, so I can't always speak for the country off the top of my head and don't take it as general basis. I do own a handgun and an airgun - not to be confused with airsoft guns. Airguns are objectively lethal.)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 05:27:40 PM by Shienvien »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #116 on: June 30, 2015, 05:53:00 PM »
        So yeah. Gun licenses that are easy enough to obtain as long as you meet the requirements are the way to go.

        Additional clauses like [that] shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

        (Note: I am not in the US, so I can't always speak for the country off the top of my head and don't take it as general basis. I do own a handgun and an airgun - not to be confused with airsoft guns. Airguns are objectively lethal.)

I believe that since the basis of Caehlim's friend's license was 'for competitive shooting', the requirement for competition was to ensure that he was being honest about his intent with the gun.  Dashenka mentioned relatives who needed theirs for protecting livestock from wolves - evidence that predators had territory in the area would be something comparable (If I were to make a similar claim and have a residence in Manhattan, I would hope that someone would see through it.)

Honestly, I'd settle for regular 'bill of health' style qualifications (written and practical 'exam' like with a car).

Offline Caehlim

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #117 on: June 30, 2015, 05:57:29 PM »
Additional clauses like shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

Oh, that also includes competing against your own personal best, so it's easy to have just a target practice counted as 'competition' so long as you don't mind going into a firing range to have it registered. That's only because his listed reason for wanting a firearms license is 'to participate in competitions' so he has to establish that. If he had the gun for hunting, work, etc. that requirement wouldn't apply (although there'd probably be a different one).

I believe that since the basis of Caehlim's friend's license was 'for competitive shooting', the requirement for competition was to ensure that he was being honest about his intent with the gun.

Exactly.

Offline Sethala

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #118 on: June 30, 2015, 08:51:21 PM »
I'm also agreed to restrictions on the ownership of guns (personally I wouldn't mind if guns were banned entirely, but I know that's not a popular opinion at all), but I think it might help the discussion a bit if we can propose a "gun control system" that those against gun control (primarily Zakharra, as she seems to be the most vocal) could possibly agree with.  So, some ideas, off the top of my head:

-All firearms must have a serial number and be registered.  Ownership of a firearm without a serial number, a firearm whose serial number is damaged or illegible, or a firearm whose serial number isn't registered, is illegal
-Firearms that are lost or stolen must be immediately reported.
-Firearms not in use must be kept unloaded and in a secure location.
-People who wish to own a gun must have a license.  Such licenses require completing a firearm safety course and a brief mental and physical (e.g. proper eyesight) test.  Possession of a firearm without a license is illegal.
-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).
-Firearm licenses must be kept current, and licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)
-Certain illegal activities may suspend or revoke a person's license.
-All firearm sales must be registered, and must include a background check on the buyer's firearm license, to ensure it has not been suspended or revoked.

Would a set of guidelines similar to these be an acceptable level of gun control?

Offline Aethereal

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #119 on: June 30, 2015, 09:00:48 PM »
I agree with all points besides these ones (as might be evident from above):
Quote
-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).
Quote
licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)
       I believe that it shouldn't be necessary to add additional clauses like this. If the gun use is lawful, it is lawful, and I shouldn't get a new license just because I decided to try out something new / cannot go to a gun range for some period of time, only hunt once every two years, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Offline Sethala

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2015, 10:18:37 PM »
I believe that it shouldn't be necessary to add additional clauses like this. If the gun use is lawful, it is lawful, and I shouldn't get a new license just because I decided to try out something new / cannot go to a gun range for some period of time, only hunt once every two years, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Would it be more acceptable if there were, in addition to specific use permits, a general "gun ownership" permit that may be more difficult or require more checks to get?  I admit, I'm not sure if I'm entirely for requiring the guns to have a specific purpose, to be honest, it's more something I decided to toss in to gauge reaction.  I don't think I know enough about guns to figure out what would be allowable under different permits.

Offline Aethereal

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2015, 10:58:35 PM »
Quote
Would it be more acceptable if there were, in addition to specific use permits, a general "gun ownership" permit that may be more difficult or require more checks to get?
       Why should there be any specific use permits rather than only the general permit, and why should be a general permit be harder to get)? What is the objective reasoning behind it (given background checks, mental evaluations and everything else)?
       At most, I can see the benefit some parts of a permit acquiring process being specific to the gun *type* you wish to acquire. (Since, say, a small-caliber six-shot revolver and a high-powered hunting rifle do operate somewhat differently.) So there'd be a small list of the gun types you can own and buy on your permit and what you legally do with it is left out of the equation (though it might be a question in the interview-part).

Offline Sethala

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #122 on: June 30, 2015, 11:31:31 PM »
       Why should there be any specific use permits rather than only the general permit, and why should be a general permit be harder to get)? What is the objective reasoning behind it (given background checks, mental evaluations and everything else)?
       At most, I can see the benefit some parts of a permit acquiring process being specific to the gun *type* you wish to acquire. (Since, say, a small-caliber six-shot revolver and a high-powered hunting rifle do operate somewhat differently.) So there'd be a small list of the gun types you can own and buy on your permit and what you legally do with it is left out of the equation (though it might be a question in the interview-part).

That might be better, yeah, a different permit for different types of firearms, instead of different uses.  Again though, I don't know much about using guns, so someone with more knowledge on the topic could probably add more insight.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a separate permit for "conceal and carry", which I assume means having a small firearm you're allowed to conceal on your person?  I would definitely say a license for something like that would be more difficult to get than a license for just owning and using a firearm.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #123 on: June 30, 2015, 11:55:45 PM »
Concealed Carry (CCW licenses) are intended for smaller weapons, yes.  I suppose that technically you could slap a Tommy gun in a guitar case and call it 'concealed carry' - just mind that you have a good accountant.  (Al Capone joke - couldn't resist.)

For those in the states, I found information about CCW laws here.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Charleston Shooting
« Reply #124 on: July 01, 2015, 09:37:38 AM »
 Ephrial, we're going to have to agree to disagree (vehemently). I am not going to see your viewpoint as reasonable and you clearly do not see mine as reasonable, so the best thing might be to just drop the matter.

 For the rest, I would rather ADD to the Rights, not restrict or remove them. For some of you who favor heavily restricting the 2nd, the levels I am seeing here pretty much amount to a removal of the right with some of the requirements some people want just so someone can own a firearm. I might bend a little on the more reasonable ones, such as a background check for mental stability. If that is passed, there shouldn't be any further restrictions on someone buying and owning a gun. Maybe just a check up (at a low cost to do, nothing expensive) in a few years (5-10 years) to make sure the owner is still mentally competent.

Quote
-All firearms must have a serial number and be registered.  Ownership of a firearm without a serial number, a firearm whose serial number is damaged or illegible, or a firearm whose serial number isn't registered, is illegal
-Firearms that are lost or stolen must be immediately reported.

 I have a problem with the first one. Not all firearms have serial numbers. Old ones have a good chance of not having a serial number. Adding one could very well destroy the value of the firearm (muskets, flintlocks or ones like those, before we started putting serial numbers on firearms for cataloging purposes), or are very worn because of the age of the gun. This ruling automatically makes those guns illegal, which will anger a LOT of collectors.
 The second one I have no problem with as long as it is when the person discovers it is missing. Sometimes it might be some time before you discover the firearm is missing.

Quote
-Firearms not in use must be kept unloaded and in a secure location.
-People who wish to own a gun must have a license.  Such licenses require completing a firearm safety course and a brief mental and physical (e.g. proper eyesight) test.  Possession of a firearm without a license is illegal.
-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).
-Firearm licenses must be kept current, and licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)

 Some firearms possibly, but all firearms have to be kept unloaded and in a secured location (assuming a gun safe that is always kept locked with the ammunition in a different place)? No. One reason people purchase a gun is for home protection. This means it should be relatively and easily accessible. People used to keep guns out in the open all the time, gun racks were a common thing yet the number of people who were shot accidentally wasn't large because people knew enough to leave the thing alone if it wasn't theirs. Children were taught to leave firearms alone and taught proper gun safety. My kids are taught proper gun safety.

 The second, third and fourth parts, I am not in favor for. Licenses can be revoked or denied too easily. The 2nd is a Right that shouldn't be easily denied or restricted, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
 
Quote
-Certain illegal activities may suspend or revoke a person's license.
-All firearm sales must be registered, and must include a background check on the buyer's firearm license, to ensure it has not been suspended or revoked.

 Accepted with some reservations.