jkcerda on 22/3/2018 at 16:06
ha, you guys want to legislate rights based on nothing more than your feelings and you have no clue about what you want to legislate. meme fits you perfectly.
catbarf on 22/3/2018 at 16:09
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I dunno, a lot of that trend seems to amount to fussing over details, restricting stuff only soldiers should have anyway, or making you get a permit before you can take a gun when you pop down the shops for milk and dogfood. I don't see some inevitable slippery slope from there to BAN EVERYTHING. That can't, won't happen unless a majority of Americans wants it to (and they don't). Too much of a societal shift has to happen first.
No, I don't think it's likely, or inevitable, or something the majority of Americans currently want. But we're already seeing a considerable societal shift in attitudes towards firearms, so I don't think it's safe to treat that as a constant. There's already a vocal minority calling for either a total ban on firearms or more restrictive laws than even our European counterparts, and the public attitude towards guns is a lot more contentious than it was fifty years ago.
I don't see it as an inevitable slippery slope, and if I've made it sound like 'if we have any reform, then it inevitably leads to a total ban!' then I haven't conveyed myself well. It's just much easier to reach a state of heavy restriction through incremental change rather than immediate reform. California's been a clear example of this, and it makes gun owners in other states go 'nah, let's not go down that road at all, take your registry and shove it'.
In that respect, one thing that would be useful would be for Democrats to figure out exactly what they want. We know the hardline crazy Republicans want no restriction whatsoever, but the Democratic Party as a whole can't seem to make up its mind as to what level of gun regulation it sees as ideal. When they say 'nobody's coming for your guns' but then Gov. Cuomo says 'confiscation is an option' or Feinstein praises Australia's mandatory buyback program, it sets the alarm bells ringing and the NRA donations start rolling in.
You might not be able to win over the really hardline gun nuts, but the reasonable majority would be much more receptive to compromise if they didn't keep hearing these quips that make them think mass disarmament is the end goal. The guy who just owns a pump shotgun for hunting is not going to be throwing his lot in with the hardliners if he isn't afraid of some overbearing, ill-conceived legislation coming for him next.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
But it still seems sense to take some of the more ridiculous hardware off the table, even if it only takes a few percent off the death rate. Sure, very few people are murdered by Barett rifles.
I just don't see the point if there's no public health utility to it. For most of the ridiculous hardware, we're not talking reducing a few percent off the death levels, we're talking zero. Like, I've literally never heard of a Barrett being used to commit a crime. So what's the objective with denying ownership? In any Western society it's not up to individuals to justify their ownership of an object, it's up to the state to demonstrate an undue harm that can only be mitigated through restriction.
I'm fine with regulating stuff that research demonstrates deserves regulation; I'm not fine with regulating stuff just out of subjective moral principle.
catbarf on 22/3/2018 at 16:19
Quote Posted by PigLick
In Australia, a whole lot of people handed in their guns to be destroyed, it wasnt just about the banning. Would this happen in the US?
New York had a mandatory registration of assault weapons back in '13 as part of the SAFE Act. Failure to register was a felony, but current estimates peg the compliance rate at 4%, with many local authorities outright refusing to carry out enforcement of the SAFE Act. I can't imagine a mandatory buyback being anything besides a total non-compliance shitshow, followed by an actual bloodbath in the streets if law enforcement tries to force the issue.
Quote Posted by PigLick
just face it catbarf you like owning guns and thats it
Well, yeah, I'm not sure I've ever denied it. I'm a white, middle-class, physically-able, young male living in a reasonably peaceful suburban neighborhood. I have no demonstrable fears for my safety or well-being, so my interest in historical and exotic firearms is purely academic and recreational. But I know a lot of people who aren't nearly so fortunate, and have demonstrable need for self-defense, and more than that I resent legislation for legislation's sake that doesn't fix or even mitigate the severe problems we have as a society.
Chimpy Chompy on 22/3/2018 at 16:36
Quote Posted by catbarf
I don't see it as an inevitable slippery slope, and if I've made it sound like 'if we have any reform, then it inevitably leads to a total ban!' then I haven't conveyed myself well. It's just much easier to reach a state of heavy restriction through incremental change rather than immediate reform.
Whatever new equilibrium might be reached, probably wouldn't get so heavy as to stop you having a rifle for hunting or a shotgun to defend the home.
Incidentally, as I understand it Cuomo said confiscation was an option for "assault weapons", I know the definition gets a bit hazy but that clearly doesn't mean all guns.
Quote:
I just don't see the point if there's no public health utility to it. For most of the ridiculous hardware, we're not talking reducing a few percent off the death levels, we're talking zero. Like, I've literally never heard of a Barrett being used to commit a crime. So what's the objective with denying ownership? In any Western society it's not up to individuals to justify their ownership of an object, it's up to the state to demonstrate an undue harm that can only be mitigated through restriction.
I'm fine with individuals justifying ownership of an item that is highly dangerous and not essential to their livelihoods. You can have fun shooting shit with a much less potent weapon.
I am a statist european tho so i realise I may be out of sync with a lot of American thinking. :cool: I would just try and avoid these arguments but I'm married to an American and I'd rather none of her family get shot at... (funnily enough she's even more anti gun than I am).
jkcerda on 22/3/2018 at 16:41
about 8-12 k murders in the U.S per year, mostly thugs & hood rats taking each other out so they don't make the news, statistically your wife's family is safe from getting shot, the numbers do increase when it comes to violent crime . btw the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting .
catbarf on 22/3/2018 at 17:21
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I'm fine with individuals justifying ownership of an item that is highly dangerous and not essential to their livelihoods.
I hate to go back to this analogy, but if 'because it's fun' isn't a sufficient justification for owning something dangerous not essential to one's livelihood, that doesn't leave much room for alcohol. But as far as I'm aware, no European country has outlawed the stuff, simply because it has high recreational value despite high societal harm. There's no justification besides a desire for recreational use, but that's enough.
I don't think the perspectives of the US and Europe are too different in this regard. On some level we both recognize that recreational use is a legitimate justification for ownership of harmful objects and substances, provided the harm doesn't dramatically outweigh the recreational use. If the demonstrable societal harm from allowing ownership of certain weapons is negligible, I don't see how you can consistently require justification for ownership on any grounds other than special pleading.
I'd much rather invest time and effort into regulating stuff that shows a clear need for regulation, rather than stuff that seems scary but hasn't presented any risk. At the very least, as a matter of practicality, it can avoid alienating those owners who would be affected.
Chimpy Chompy on 22/3/2018 at 17:58
whatabouting :(
Even if I singularly fail to make an argument for booze, and crumple under the weight of my own hypocrisy as I down a bottle of Black Sheep: easy access to AR-15s is still a bad idea.
Anyway the most harm that can be caused by drinking is if someone then goes and drives. That's already very illegal and can result in severe punishment even if you don't hit anything.
Otherwise, the individual potential for harm for 1 beer is pretty low compared to 1 gun. The problems come in because there are more beers than guns. That said I'm all for reigning in drinking culture somehow. We drink far too much in the UK. I'd be happy, for example, to see US-style laws against walking around with an open container.
catbarf on 22/3/2018 at 18:06
Fair on all points, although I have to point out that to your statement about drinking and driving already being illegal, well, so's attempted homicide. We're talking about regulating the means, rather than the act. I agree with you, easy access to AR-15s (or any firearm) is a bad idea, I was just talking about the really minor edge case of stuff like high-caliber rifles.
What I'm trying to say is that I think we should be instituting regulation necessary to mitigate the societal risk posed by different types of firearms, not blindly instituting gun control on the basis of what seems most threatening. That approach is how we wound up in this current situation of debating AR-15s while deaths due to handguns outnumber deaths due to rifles (of any kind) a hundred to one, and it's either not productive or downright counterproductive.
jkcerda on 22/3/2018 at 18:27
be happy to look at ANYTHING else that does NOT infringe on my gun rights.... few states have opted a version to Rodgers law. (
https://www.independent.com/news/2014/sep/02/elliot-rodger-bills-pass-legislature/)
Quote:
Williams's bill — which he cosponsored with Assemblymember Nancy Skinner —
would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of someone suspected of posing a serious threat to themselves or others to seek a judge's order to remove any firearms from that person's possession. Although the Williams bill cleared both chambers handily, it encountered some last-minute flak from the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment rights organizations that testified and mobilized robo-calls from throughout the state against it. Williams stressed these calls came from outside the district and insisted that the measure enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
At issue was the level of due process governing the decision-making process. Williams said the bill was amended to require a higher burden of proof for a judge to issue such an order. The target of such an action would have to wait 21 days to file an appeal contesting the decision. “If the judge screws up, the person gets a chance to make their case 21 days later, and they get their guns back,” Williams said. “But if someone gets shot to death by a madman with a gun, well, they don't get a chance to come back 21 days later.”
LarryG on 22/3/2018 at 19:18
Problem is, if you take away a madman's guns, and he knows that you ratted him out, then how likely is he not to be a little annoyed with you and decide to go irrational on you by whatever means are still handy? After all, he is a madman.
