You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 03:49:24 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: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #175 on: October 11, 2015, 05:17:09 PM »
Thread is going in rather in circles and tempers have been a bit up.

Thread will be locked for 24 hours.

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #176 on: October 13, 2015, 10:15:15 PM »
Sorry for the delay, folks.

The thread is now unlocked. Play nice, and should there be another need for another lock, it'll be longer than 24 hours.

Online theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #177 on: October 13, 2015, 10:35:39 PM »
To touch on the issue of gun reform, gun control, or whatever you would like to call it.  I think it is important to note that doing things like requiring a professional evaluation before being 'permitted' to exercise your second amendment rights places too much power in the hands of those who do the evaluations.  People are not perfect.  People are prone to making mistakes, and to taking advantage of their position for personal reasons or just personal gain.  Such a system where a limited body of a few determine which of the masses is permitted to take advantage of their constitutionally granted rights is assured to fall into corruption based only on the fact that it is composed of, sponsored by, and over seen by fallible humans.

I don't see why so much effort is spent in trying to determine who can or should be able to purchase a firearm, when the gun itself is not the issue.  The issue is the state of the culture those guns exist in, and the levels of rational thought existing within said society.  Guns are dangerous right now, yes, because our society is so perfectly tuned to produce dangerous, uncompromising people who are prone to severe and radical thoughts.  This is a matter of culture, not law.  We need a change in our society.  We need more tolerance towards each other, and towards those who are different from us.  Right now, we have less and less.  It has become common to think that because something offends us, that thing has to stop happening.  It doesn't matter if a majority of people do not find it offensive, if one person is offended, it is suddenly a huge deal.  This is a wrong way of thinking, this sort of mentality elevates the self and lowers the value of community.

I don't believe guns need to be regulated any more than they are today.  We should close loopholes that allow guns to be purchased without criminal background checks, but I feel we need to spend some time in collective cultural meditation, until we understand that we're one people.  In spite of our differences, we are America (sorry non-USA people, I'm speaking from my view of my nation).  Until we stop hating each other, it doesn't matter what weapons we limit.  We're always going to find a way to kill each other.

I am a "democrat" though I pretty much identify independent, I'm not a gun owner, and I never intend on being a gun owner. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #178 on: October 14, 2015, 03:26:55 AM »
Thank you for the break, Sherlock.  Was getting a bit tense indeed! 

On which note, I'll try a last, less confrontational explanation and wean myself from this conversation. 

Then you noted that, even when examining only mentally ill criminals, less than 20% of their crimes could be connected in abny way to their illness? If so, why make the disingenuous "just under 50%" statement in the first place?

Because "Not usually" was used as a response to "Do you feel there are individuals who, due to mental challenges, present a significant danger if given access to firearms?".  I was pointing out that it wasn't actually an answer to my question about whether such people exist (or, if it was, it was an affirmative answer). 

Quote
Indeed.  So you're saying there are no mentally ill individuals who are prone to violence toward others, or harm to themselves, due to their medical condition?  That such persons do not exist?
No, I'm saying that "mental illness" or "insanity" - as a broad category - is an incredibly shitty indicator of violence. Delusions and paranoia in particular are even worse indicators of violence. Taking away rights available to the general public from these people, on the grounds that "they might get violent," is counterproductive and disenfranchising.

Super; we seem to be in basic agreement. 

And yet you argue against me, when I object to the use of a label that is generally applied to mentally ill people as a category

I think the issue you are observing is that I don't see Sociopath as generally applied; I think it's commonly understood that only a small fraction of mentally ill people are "antisocial, often criminal, and...lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."  YMMV. 

All semantic arguments aside, and also in response to this: 
You can't compel a person's psychotherapist to disclose their condition any more than you can compel a doctor to disclose a patient's illnesses. 

The government disagrees.  There are a few exceptions to Confidentiality.  The pertinent ones for this conversation include:
Quote
Where there is a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or elder adult physical abuse;
Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you may present a danger of violence to others;
Where there is a reasonable suspicion that you are likely to harm yourself unless protective measures are taken.

In each of these cases a therapist is allowed, and at times required, to break confidentiality.  I would forward that part of such a warning should involve temporary (six month?) registry on a no-buy list, which could be appealed.  Registry should not relate to any specific illnesses or be an avenue to restrict anyone without cause.  But I do feel it's a reasonable precaution that would save lives without significant or undue infringement of rights. 

yet I don't see anyone calling for background checks into someone's drinking habits or regular drug screenings for gun owners.

Not bad ideas.  There's some redundancy with criminal checks (it's illegal to buy and possess drugs, but not to be violently insane or suicidal).  I'm not sure how you'd realistically check someone's drinking habits.  A drug test to get or renew a license makes sense. 

My sincere apologies if our conversation upset you.  Obviously this is personal, and I respect your passionate comments against discrimination.  Just remember to inform and understand before attacking; I think you'd discover that, aside from some controversial terms and lack of understanding nuances, most of the people in this thread (including me) would agree with most of what you have to say. 

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #179 on: October 14, 2015, 03:35:29 AM »
To touch on the issue of gun reform, gun control, or whatever you would like to call it.  I think it is important to note that doing things like requiring a professional evaluation before being 'permitted' to exercise your second amendment rights places too much power in the hands of those who do the evaluations.  People are not perfect.  People are prone to making mistakes, and to taking advantage of their position for personal reasons or just personal gain.  Such a system where a limited body of a few determine which of the masses is permitted to take advantage of their constitutionally granted rights is assured to fall into corruption based only on the fact that it is composed of, sponsored by, and over seen by fallible humans.

I don't see why so much effort is spent in trying to determine who can or should be able to purchase a firearm, when the gun itself is not the issue.  The issue is the state of the culture those guns exist in, and the levels of rational thought existing within said society.  Guns are dangerous right now, yes, because our society is so perfectly tuned to produce dangerous, uncompromising people who are prone to severe and radical thoughts.  This is a matter of culture, not law.  We need a change in our society.  We need more tolerance towards each other, and towards those who are different from us.  Right now, we have less and less.  It has become common to think that because something offends us, that thing has to stop happening.  It doesn't matter if a majority of people do not find it offensive, if one person is offended, it is suddenly a huge deal.  This is a wrong way of thinking, this sort of mentality elevates the self and lowers the value of community.

I don't believe guns need to be regulated any more than they are today.  We should close loopholes that allow guns to be purchased without criminal background checks, but I feel we need to spend some time in collective cultural meditation, until we understand that we're one people.  In spite of our differences, we are America (sorry non-USA people, I'm speaking from my view of my nation).  Until we stop hating each other, it doesn't matter what weapons we limit.  We're always going to find a way to kill each other.

I am a "democrat" though I pretty much identify independent, I'm not a gun owner, and I never intend on being a gun owner.

thank you... thank you very much for saving me from working towards the root of the problem by directly pointing at it.
I beat around the bush too much.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #180 on: October 14, 2015, 08:14:24 AM »
First off, it's kinda vague by what it means by "militia;" does it refer to the national guard or the army, or each states independent militia? Either way, not important. The reason I bring this up is because:
...
IN THE CONSTITUTION, it says "REGULATED militia," which suggests some government oversight as to who gets the firearm and who doesn't. It doesn't say "GUNS FOR EVERYBODY, NO EXCEPTIONS!"
For answers to this, look no further than the US Constitution itself, specifically Articel 1, Section 8 that lists the powers of Congress. Some government oversight is not just suggested by the Second Ammendment, it is provided for in the Constitution:
Quote
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Army and Navy are listed seperatly. They are different from the Militia.

What the Militia is intended for is also stated.

Congress is given the power to "organize, arm, and discipline" the Militia.

As long as anyone claims their rights to bear arms is grounded in the provisions of the Second Amendment they should accept that anything relating to this mysterious "Militia" can be regulated by Congress. That is not against the Constitution. It is a power granted Congress by the very same Constitution the Second Amendment is rooted in.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #181 on: October 14, 2015, 11:07:29 AM »
What follows is a bit of a rant, but the longer I follow this debate, the more I feel I need to get this off my chest. Feel free to ignore what follows as much as you like, please. I'll put this in a spoiler because it really may be just a personal rant in the context of the larger debate.

Ranty rant
There are basically two points to what's on my mind about gun rights (aside from statistics and other pesky little facts): The Second Amendment and the Deflecting Arguments, for lack of a better description.

Why on Earth would anyone argue that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to bear arms unless they are part of a militia overseen by congressional legislation? When did people start to interpret this as an individual right when it is pretty much written as a collective right? I admit that I have yet to read up on the relavant court decisions, but - to the best of my knowledge - it really kicked off under Bush #2 and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, i.e. just a little after the turn of the century. Thing is, Bush led Gore among NRA members by 25 points, far as I recall something I read, but correct me if I'm wrong. The NRA spent a whole lot of money in support of Bush. Without NRA money those few hundred folks in Florida might not have mattered at all and Gore could have carried the day. (Sure, other interest groups spent a whole lot of money too, but that doesn't mean the NRA didn't.)

So the NRA supported Bush. Big deal. They represent hunters, sports shooters, and people who just want the right to keep a gun in their nightstand to defend their home, right? No. Actually No! The NRA gets a ton of money from the arms industry. Not just through advertisments in NRA publications, but also through sponsorship for NRA events and programs and even more direct contributions. And what does the arms industry want? Selling guns. The more guns the better. And that is what the NRA lobbies for. Anything that might make it more difficult for gun dealers to sell more guns can - and will - be torpedoed by the NRA and its lobby groups on the Hill.

Now, I am not saying that everyone who argues against gun restrictions is in the pocket of the arms industry, but if you find yourself repeating an argument initially advanced by the NRA, ask yourself Cui Bono? For whose benefit? If you still believe in that argument that's fine with me. I'll probably disagree, but that sure is better than parroting a sales pitch.

The other thing that gets my knickers in a twist are "yes, but anything but gun control" arguments that seem to answer the question if 2+2 equals 4 with the counterpoint that we should first look up in a dictionary what the precise meaning of "equals" is.

Lets conjure up an analogy.

Let's say people die in traffic accidents. Let us further assume that the faster a car travels, the more likely it is that an accident it is involved in will lead to deadly results. Not really an unlikely scenario, is it?

So... along comes someone who advocates speed limits. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Fast cars kill more people than slow cars, so lets see to it that cars don't race down the road at 150mph?

No. Actually, lets see to it that people with bad eyesight don't get a driver's license. Doesn't matter that they don't cause any more accidents than other people, as long as they wear their glasses. They are the real problem. Only that they are not. And even if they were, introducing and enforcing speed limits would bring the number of accidents they cause down. Even better ... what if we require those people to wear glasses and have speed limits? What? Two for the price of one? Oh my gosh.

Or how about we just say that the speed of cars is not the problem? Maybe it's the mindset of the drivers? Maybe we just need a different driving culture. We just need to all become better drivers and the speed of the cars will not matter. Why on Earth can't you have both, for Pete's sake? Speed limits and better driver responsibility? Maybe you'll fail in changing the culture, maybe you'll succeed, but in the meantime people will die in situations that could have been avoided if you had introduced - and enforced - speed limits.

So here are my modest proposals for gun control:

Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban. Does anyone who wants to shoot as a sport, hunt deer, or defend their home really need a rifle with a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher mount? Really, pick one. Seriously. Make up your mind. And if you can't chose - get three rifles, one for each option.

Require background checks for all gun sales. In most cases the background checks take only a minute or two (okay, maybe more, but as I understand these things, most of the time it's just a matter of making a call and waiting a few minutes for the reply). You wouldn't argue that people only need a driver's license if they bought their car in the US, would you? Would you exempt people from having a driver's license if the bought their car in Canada or Mexico? Probably not.

Here we might go beyond "modest proposals", but also forget about concealed carry and "stand your ground" laws. They don't work. Really, trust me. There are studies that prove it. Honestly. Good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns, unless we are talking law enforcement officers here when it comes to the good guys. The only thing those laws help are gun sales. Here's something that might really help change culture - because most people are not John Rambo or John Wayne, no matter how much they would like to believe they are. Maybe no longer telling them otherwise might be a good idea.

But even if you just go for the AWB and more background checks, it will be a step in the right direction. Changing culture and attitudes sometimes needs regulations. Many people disliked seatbelts, but where they became mandatory they helped safe lives and nowadys people accept them pretty much as normal.

Requiring seat belts didn't take peoples cars away, but they did save lives. Why can't people look at gun laws the same way?

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #182 on: October 14, 2015, 01:06:32 PM »
What follows is a bit of a rant, but the longer I follow this debate, the more I feel I need to get this off my chest.

Fair enough!   ;)

Why on Earth would anyone argue that the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to bear arms unless they are part of a militia overseen by congressional legislation? When did people start to interpret this as an individual right when it is pretty much written as a collective right?

From the start, pretty much. 

James Madison, Federalist 46, 1788: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

-Being armed is a defense against tyranny; if Europeans were able to have weapons, that alone might end tyranny. 

Coxe, 1792: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

-The right to bear arms is a protection against tyranny by our own military. 

Tucker, 1803: "Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game...the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game."

-Restrictions on weapons in England enable religious and social discrimination, and any restriction at all is a threat to liberty. 

Remember the context of the Constitution.  The people who fought at Lexington and Concord, the first conflicts of the Revolution, were militias, organized and trained by themselves, of their own will, to counter the current government.  It is exactly these non-government-controlled individuals that the text refers to, not our current preconceptions of a professional state national guard. 

The Constitution is a living document, though, and new interpretations are valid and good (it never foresaw nuclear weapons, automobiles, or the internet, after all).  We must interpret the 2nd in light of our modern situation and values.  But claiming that the amendment wasn't originally intended to protect the individual right to own a personal firearm is ridiculous.  As is the entire notion that the amendment is about hunting, btw. 

The NRA gets a ton of money from the arms industry. Not just through advertisments in NRA publications, but also through sponsorship for NRA events and programs and even more direct contributions. And what does the arms industry want? Selling guns.

And the other side is dominated by moralistic groups who dismiss others' rights as irrelevant in the face of their own comfort and protection.  They're better at the sympathy vote, but neither side of the debate really thrills me. 

Bring back the Assault Weapons Ban.

I've already addressed this ad nauseam elsewhere, but the AWB was a horrid piece of legislation that was strictly based on what weapons look scary.  Numbers show that such weapons are among the least likely to kill anyone, it was easily bypassed, had little effect and it distracted from more productive conversations.  If you want to ban a gun type, ban pistols (those are used for 80% of killings, while assault weapons are used for 2%; since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons). 
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 01:13:08 PM by eBadger »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #183 on: October 14, 2015, 05:32:48 PM »

I've already addressed this ad nauseam elsewhere, but the AWB was a horrid piece of legislation that was strictly based on what weapons look scary.  Numbers show that such weapons are among the least likely to kill anyone, it was easily bypassed, had little effect and it distracted from more productive conversations.  If you want to ban a gun type, ban pistols (those are used for 80% of killings, while assault weapons are used for 2%; since 1934 there have been two deaths in the US by legally licensed automatic weapons).

Yea, whenever I see 'bring back the AWB' as part of an argument I immediately start losing any attention I have for that person's argument, because it one sentence it tells me 'Here is someone that's read lots of opinion pieces from gun control activists but has no actual concept of how firearms work or function'.

The NRA and the GOP are morons, but they're always going to get rabid buy in from a large section of the population because of sentiments exactly like that. "This gun scares me, you shouldn't be allowed to have it". It's like waving a flag saying 'this is an outsider trying to exercise influence on us'.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 05:34:14 PM by Tairis »

Offline Aethereal

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #184 on: October 14, 2015, 08:51:24 PM »
Quote
Does anyone who wants to shoot as a sport, hunt deer, or defend their home really need a rifle with a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor, and a grenade launcher mount?
      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...

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #185 on: October 14, 2015, 09:02:27 PM »
Question:  does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #186 on: October 14, 2015, 10:17:11 PM »
Question:  does anyone oppose the idea of having gun show sales follow the same rules as gun store sales?

Not really, but at the same time that one is more of a talking point than an actual problem. If you read up on most the mass shooters they acquired their guns either through normal channels or from somewhere that they shouldn't have had access to (family gun collection, friend, etc). The thing is closing the 'gunshow loophole' isn't going to effect private sales outside a gunshow, which aren't going to go through that process anyways.

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. Part of that would also involve checking people's medical records on a limited basis for any mental issues that would preclude ownership of a firearm.

Problem is, that would require actual compromise which doesn't seem to exist in American politics. You're either going to get the NRA types that will stomp their feet and go 'they're taken meh guuns!' or you have people like Vergil above whose argument is 'You're not allowed to have this random list of things because I don't know what they do and they scare me'.

Basically its politicians in the pocket of industrial lobbies and shit stiring special interest groups vs polticians pandering to the vote of 'This is the 21st century and since I dont like guns nobody should have them' types.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2015, 10:18:46 PM by Tairis »

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #187 on: October 15, 2015, 03:49:10 AM »
Yea, whenever I see 'bring back the AWB' as part of an argument I immediately start losing any attention I have for that person's argument, because it one sentence it tells me 'Here is someone that's read lots of opinion pieces from gun control activists but has no actual concept of how firearms work or function'.
Granted, I am not familiar with all the minute details of the AWB or state weapon bans, but I was under the impression that many of those laws did/do not just restrict the sale of certain firearms, but also of so-called high-capacity magazines.

Would you agree with restrictions on magazine capacity and/or support the statement that recreational firearm use and home defence can be done with weapons holding no more than 10 bullets? We can argue about the number 10 and if 8 or 12 or whatnot might be a better limit, but I really don't see why any private citizen should need something like (for example) the 50 or 100 round magazines Callico seems so fond of, or rifles marketed as hunting weapons with magazines holding 30 bullets.

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. Once people get used to it, their attitudes might change, without doing any real harm.

Offline Ryven

  • Keeper of Cowthulhu | Pure Awesomenesity
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: The farthest reaches of your dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • The night's pleasure follows in my footsteps
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #188 on: October 15, 2015, 05:26:04 AM »
I agree about 90% with the heavier restriction of gun control laws.  I do have a question about how more gun-free zones will be enforced.  In theory, I love the idea, but in practice, nothing is stopping someone with a gun from going to one of these zones and opening fire on those who are actually obeying the law.

My other concern is the stricter background checks with regard to mental illness.  Diagnosing mental illness isn't a concrete science.  Many shooters have 'symptoms' or psychological aspects in common with people who don't go out and shoot people.  I know several people who are mentally ill and who have access to fire arms who have not shot anyone, myself included.  I guess the problem is where the line is drawn and what constitutes action during one of these stricter background checks.

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #189 on: October 15, 2015, 06:19:37 AM »
Not perfect, I'll admit, but it could go some way to keeping guns out of the hands of those who are dangerously unstable. Some would undoubtedly slip through the cracks, but it would catch the majority of the "risks," I think. You're right; it isn't an exact science, and some would slip through...but it's better than doing nothing, right?

I don't think that's necessary. Australia doesn't do any of that.

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #190 on: October 15, 2015, 07:58:42 AM »
Bullshit, that isn't what I said.

Virgil, if you are going to debate in this forum, try to keep things civil please.  You can make your points without without resorting to condescending and uncivil remarks. 

Things like the above quote are completely uncalled for.  Please stop. 

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #191 on: October 15, 2015, 08:23:40 AM »
My apologies; I didn't intend it that way...I just tend to have a less "strict" rule on swearing and I tend to use language like that when I want to "punctuate" something. I'll keep an eye on my language from now on. I didn't intend for it to be construed as "uncivil."

It isn't so much your language as it is your tone. 

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #192 on: October 15, 2015, 08:29:50 AM »
I'll try to keep an eye on my tone in future....

That's all we ask.  :-)   

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #193 on: October 15, 2015, 08:42:19 AM »
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. 

Offline Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #194 on: October 15, 2015, 09:01:07 AM »
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. 
« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 09:07:32 AM by Mithlomwen »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #195 on: October 15, 2015, 10:04:37 AM »
Not really,

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

Quote
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?


Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #196 on: October 15, 2015, 10:17:42 AM »
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.

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: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #197 on: October 15, 2015, 10:27:40 AM »
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?

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #198 on: October 15, 2015, 10:36:37 AM »
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.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #199 on: October 15, 2015, 11:16:22 AM »
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,"
Quote from: eBadger
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). 




« Last Edit: October 15, 2015, 01:42:48 PM by eBadger »