Good ideas in that. I'd add a mandatory gun safety certification for anyone who wants to own a weapon, because what's the down side and counter?
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
I would consider that part of obtaining a license.
Here is what I would do, and keeping it sane this time.
Allow any would be gun owner, of all hunting type rifles and long shotguns, to have a tag on the regular driver's license, tag would validate the possessor has no felony record.
Private conceal carry license; mandatory class in gun use and safety, Completes background check including a check for mental illness.
Assault weapons license, full mental health background test and psychological interview, along with already having the concealed carry permit.
This, I believe would stop most mass killings, but criminal gangs would just not get licensed, and they usually buy illicit guns. That is another problem my idea does not cover.
Artur Axmann
New member
guns are to be used for the purpose they were made.. no?
what are you griping about?
what are you griping about?
Words are made to communicate meaningful information. What are you using them for?
In Michigan to have a derringer in your pocket you have to have a CPL with training and a background check.
But, if you're 18 you can go buy as many AR-15s with bump stocks and 100 round drum magazines as you can afford.
They say that's because long guns are rarely used in crimes.
I'd say that should change.
Me too! The little gun provides some protection. having a CCP seems right on that, but assault rifles, you should have to have the same CCP and I believe more because I see them as more useful in a war than as chance of needing defense by an intruder, or attacker.
In Georgia, one is able to be legal with a pistol ( revolver) strapped to a leg, so, someone can go around with a big Colt 45, or 44 Magnum; now, that would deter must attackers. But walking around with an assault rifle would scare most persons.
Sure, then are town zones that do not allow open carry, as well, inside places, like stores and restaurant, and of course, one cannot have then in a tavern, or bar.
Note, we call them CCP or CDLs, which is the same as you are talking about. one more thing, in Alabama all they do is criminal record test, no class, which is needed by more than half would be gun carers.
What should it change to, whats your idea on it?
TH has some valid points. If principles get detailed enough, then they are the same as the situational laws that he is proposing, that I say will not help.
The principles involved here are that we cannot murder. And further, that humans have the right to defend themselves. And beyond that, since guns are an important part of self defense, that a weapon, whatever it is, must be able to be directed at a single attacker.
This doesn't reach the level of situational law that TH proposes, but even just these laws would encompass most of the gun crime we have in the US. No further laws, in general, would have to be enacted.
My laws would be a positive gain in lowing crime (not just gun crime). Although this 'principle law' method would have to be extended to all parts of the justice system to work as well as TH wants the law to work.
TH's method of creating situational laws won't work because they won't stop the next attacker. We can be sure the next attacker will be smart enough to get around any laws that TH can come up with if they are like the ones he's proposed so far. We know that is true because any attacker that gets stopped doing less won't count.
What TH has proposed is making bump stocks and high capacity mags illegal. But not only will that not stop the next Paddock, but it will make innocent people that have bump stocks and high capacity mags criminals. In fact, after the next Paddock happens TH will propose more laws to ban whatever tools the next Paddock uses. What if the next Paddock uses a 3D printer to print a bump stock? The answer is obvious, 3D printers will have to be outlawed or registered or controlled in some way.
Will that stop the Paddock after that? Nope. It will cause another round of silly bans by TH that makes more innocent people into criminals and does nothing the stop the next Paddock after that.
And there is a note about registration. I would be a bad idea, and we know that, because the laws in Germany were made looser, but somehow it got harder for Jews to buy guns. The point is not that it wouldn't matter to the totality of the holocaust; the point is that registration has been, and will surely be, used by the kind of politician in the US today for the same effect.
The principles involved here are that we cannot murder. And further, that humans have the right to defend themselves. And beyond that, since guns are an important part of self defense, that a weapon, whatever it is, must be able to be directed at a single attacker.
This doesn't reach the level of situational law that TH proposes, but even just these laws would encompass most of the gun crime we have in the US. No further laws, in general, would have to be enacted.
My laws would be a positive gain in lowing crime (not just gun crime). Although this 'principle law' method would have to be extended to all parts of the justice system to work as well as TH wants the law to work.
TH's method of creating situational laws won't work because they won't stop the next attacker. We can be sure the next attacker will be smart enough to get around any laws that TH can come up with if they are like the ones he's proposed so far. We know that is true because any attacker that gets stopped doing less won't count.
What TH has proposed is making bump stocks and high capacity mags illegal. But not only will that not stop the next Paddock, but it will make innocent people that have bump stocks and high capacity mags criminals. In fact, after the next Paddock happens TH will propose more laws to ban whatever tools the next Paddock uses. What if the next Paddock uses a 3D printer to print a bump stock? The answer is obvious, 3D printers will have to be outlawed or registered or controlled in some way.
Will that stop the Paddock after that? Nope. It will cause another round of silly bans by TH that makes more innocent people into criminals and does nothing the stop the next Paddock after that.
And there is a note about registration. I would be a bad idea, and we know that, because the laws in Germany were made looser, but somehow it got harder for Jews to buy guns. The point is not that it wouldn't matter to the totality of the holocaust; the point is that registration has been, and will surely be, used by the kind of politician in the US today for the same effect.
Well, they're mostly ideas borrowed from other countries. I didn't generate them. I'm simply calling for consideration of them on the point and as part of a dialogue.
Did you ever get around to defining that term and how it is different from any law?
Which literally no one is attempting to deny.
And there you go sideways, Yor. You decide the reasonable fetter is that. Why is that reasonable? Beyond it, what do you really mean by that, because most machine gun fire will not be discreetly directed. Maybe if you had extensive experience handling and firing it and enough muscle memory training to keep you relatively controlled in an extraordinary and stressful situation you might have a chance to fire with particularity.
Mostly it won't be the case.
What laws? The three already on the books that haven't done anything to impact the present problem we're trying to find a solution to?
In what way can we extend the principle of prohibiting murder beyond what it is at present?
By situational you appear to mean particular, as in, you cannot drive over 65 mph on X highway. But even something you call a principle is precise and aimed at a situation, like one where someone is killed without justification.
The goal here isn't to stop every attacker. That can't be done. The goal is to make the attack harder to carry out and therefore less likely. That can be done. It's being done everywhere in the West, except here.
I think those are good ideas, but I also proposed mandatory registration and gun safety courses for people who want to own them. Those were starting point ideas. I think we need to look at countries that do a better job of keeping citizens safe and see how they manage it.
See, you stop being "innocent" of a crime when you commit it. So painting people as that who willfully break the law is just a disingenuous rhetorical device.
Like Homeland Security did with fertilizer after Oklahoma.
There's nothing silly about significantly reducing the harm firearms cause. There's nothing reasonable in your proffer that the question should be reduced to all or nothing. The proof is in the pudding of our industrial, Western neighbors, who have seriously impacted the problem in their countries using precisely the sort of laws you are vainly attempting to suggest would largely create a new criminal class in America.
That's tortured. In point of fact, all Germany teaches you on the point is that unequal rights are a bad idea. Everyone should have the same rights as his neighbor.
In point of fact that's demonstrably untrue, as most of our Western neighbors illustrate.
Treat rifles the same as handguns with records kept.
If you want to sell a handgun you have to submit the forms showing you sold it to someone with a permit to purchase. With a rifle you simply sell it to someone you "believe" is 18 and not a criminal and write down who you sold it to. When it gets used in a crime down the road the cops have no idea who's had it or supposed to have it because there's no tracking. Once it's out of a gun dealers inventory it's on the wind.
But other country's gun laws don't translate well to the US. In the US, where there are high per capita guns outside of certain urban areas, violent crime is low. And where gun restrictions are high, violent crime is high - correlated much closer to gangs, black markets, and broken families than guns. Turning people into criminals outside of these areas isn't going to help, and it will hurt society.
Right. Machine guns cannot be directed at a single attacker. Neither can an RPG. Or a grenade. But a laser gun can and so can a pulse rifle. We already know where every future weapon stands according to the law even if it is a weapon we haven't conceived of yet using principled law.
That's a difference between principle law and situational laws.
Another advantage of principled laws is that people know what the law is up front. Your way results in injustice because people were turned into criminals by a heavy handed government without even knowing. Take for instance a bump stock. Someone not familiar with the ban can easily and innocently make one. They shouldn't be criminals, but you've turned them into one.
Or take my friend with the over-zealous officer that took two of his rifles. The only thing holding him back from getting justice is the fact that bureaucrats are able to do more violence against him than he can do to them. But that won't always be the case - you shouldn't create people like that but that's what your laws do.
And you really trust jack-booted thugs like that officer to know who has a gun and who doesn't?
Sure, just look at NKorea. You'll take every attacker and see the situation that attacker was in and try to ban something in that situation. Not only will you not lower the next attacker's body count, but you'll make more innocent people into criminals. Your laws have to make them poorer by necessity, too, which will end up killing a great deal more people than any mass-shooter.
Laws that haven't been passed aren't translating at all. There's no way to pass your judgment on the absence and every bit of data from our Western cousins unhorses your sentiment.
The more people you have concentrated in an area the more crime and violence you're going to have. That's another way of looking at it. But I doubt your data. I was just looking at deaths per 100k people and Alabama, by way of, is 19.7 (the national avg. is 11.1) and New York is 4.2, New Jersey is 5.4 and Mississippi stands at 19.7 deaths by firearms per 100k.
Except that isn't how it works when you have uniform laws relating to guns (see: the rest of the Western industrial world).
It's possible, but unlikely. And absent sufficient training some idiot with a semi automatic is likely to be incapable of directing his fire that singularly.
Is it? You still haven't defined what you mean by situational laws. I asked you to a good while back. Distinguish one from the other in particular, so people can know what you mean by the use.
No one who understands the purpose of a bump stock will "innocently" make one given the law is directed at its prohibition. But it's easy enough to educate the public on gun laws. Maybe as a part of the responsible handling course.
The officer could have warned him, but he got justice. He could have received mercy of a sort. One of the two (at least) had something of an attitude.
Law's don't create criminals. People violating the law create their own trouble. I'm going to guess your friend knew the law but didn't follow it. If he didn't know the law before he decided to transport a firearm then he's being negligent in his duty as a citizen of a compact with particular laws relating to a fairly hot button issue.
See, calling an officer of the law who is enforcing the letter of the law a jack-booted thug just makes you sound a little crazy. It's not like the guy was roughed up and thrown in a cell. And it's not like your friend was right to begin with. Was the officer needlessly zealous? Maybe the argument can be made. Or maybe your friend knew the law, didn't follow it, and brought a similar attitude to the party that you display in your description, in which case the outcome was predictable.
Yeaah, no. And when you have to try to do that you're only underscoring a certain desperation, a need to distort and assume to push your part. That's almost always a sign that the argument alone isn't working for you. So no, again, the idea isn't to fine tune to death and exception, but to make it more difficult for wanna be mass murderers to manage it. And the rest of the industrialized Western world is proof that you can mostly do that without a constant barrage of new laws, just some proven, solid, workable law that's already been well tested.
Baloney. Nearly 30 deaths by firearms per million here. Fewer than 2 deaths per million in Australia. Fewer than a third as many per million in the runner up contest to us. It's inarguable that you can lower the body count consistently. And criminals create themselves more often than not, supra.
You think poor people are the ones lining up to buy assault rifles?
lain:There's literally no empirical basis for that statement. It's the worst sort of irresponsible nonsense.
Are you saying the per capita rate should be higher in concentrated areas? Why?
My data is the same as yours. I'm looking at number of guns per capita and the murder rate in the same place. Remove the places were guns have their greatest restrictions, and the murder rate falls rapidly.
In fact, in over 1/2 the counties in the US there were zero murders in 2014. None of those counties contain the kind of restrictions on guns that the counties that do have high murder rates tend to have.
So a more apt comparison would not be western countries vs the US, but half of Washington DC vs the other half (just follow 14th street straight to the bottom of DC).
"http://www.burgersub.org/totals/washingtondctotal.htm"
"http://projects.oregonlive.com/guns/dealers"
"http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/"
The purpose of a bump stock is to be cool, right?
If a government can create enough laws, they become more and more obscure, and eventually one finds out the innocent things they've been doing are against the law. In that way the law certainly does create criminals.
In both cases he thought he was following the law. He plugged his magazine so it would only hold a certain number of rounds. He was shooting more than one rifle and removed them from their cases in the back of his car at the property he was shooting at. Sure, the plug wasn't strong enough if one pushed hard enough, and it was up to the officer to decide whether it was transported in its uncased state; but because of the bad attitude of my co-worker, the officer took the worst possible view.
And that's the point. The laws give an officer leeway to really screw with someone based on their attitude, not on whether a person is dangerous, violent, or a thief.
The encounter went something like this:
Officer: do you have permission to shoot here?
Co-worker: I'm John Smith. I own the property.
Officer: That looks like a 30 round mag. Mags are limited to 20 rounds.
Co-worker: I have it plugged so it only holds 20 rounds.
Officer: Let me see that mag.
...
Officer (Perhaps looking for other contraband): Open your trunk.
...
The encounter should have gone like this:
Officer: do you have permission to shoot here?
Co-worker: I'm John Smith. I own the property.
Officer: Have a nice day.
I appreciate your good intentions. But the only way to contain the mass murderers, ultimately, is to create a police state. It isn't unreasonable to show you, ultimately, what is at the end of the road you want to go on.
everready
New member
You might find this interesting it lines up with what's happening in Rev 13..
http://www.pacinst.com/america.htm
Found this article a couple of weeks ago.
everready
New York has tougher gun law and a lot more people than Alabama and Mississippi, which are much more dangerous places to live if you want to avoid being shot dead.
Another problem with trying to compare next door neighbors with different policies is it ignores a couple of points. If you can't buy here and the guy down the street is a green light you simply go down the street. Or, it underscores the need for uniformity in law. Secondly, the tighter gun laws in cities is a response to crime and it's irrational to suggest the causal, that having tougher law makes violence more likely to happen. It would be like arguing that people would drive more responsibly without speed limits or traffic laws.
Sure. That's it. Glad you're taking the subject seriously. Next point.
Except you're still roaming through vagaries without real illustration, let alone noting an actual cause and effect of a particular. Or, you can say that law itself invites complication and obscurity and the unintentional creation of lawlessness on the part of the ignorant, but it really doesn't tend to do that, can be revisited and reformed when it does. So that's no real reason to avoid law.
Either he was or he wasn't. If he was he should sue and he'll win.
There's almost always some discretion involved in terms of how an officer of the court approaches someone. Not every crime is prosecuted. Many are mitigated by circumstance and the intelligent exercise of authority. That's a good idea. Black letter law would treat a man rushing his wife to the hospital with a ruptured appendix the same as it would two kids drag racing. That's unjust.
Supra. It's a good idea and it wan't one that penalized your friend. He penalized himself.
What I'm looking for and what we can absolutely accomplish is radically reducing the likelihood of being murdered by firearms in this country. And we can affect this change by adopting a rational approach to gun laws, as every other industrialized Western society has managed without reducing their governments to police states.
Rather, it is both unreasonable and alarmist to claim something not in evidence to counter what is.
This isn't true. The high crime areas in Alabama and Mississippi have more restrictions on guns than rural parts of New York.
Then do what the guy down the street is doing. He doesn't have a violent crime problem. He also has less restrictions on guns.
Crime is a great deal more correlated to gangs, black markets, and broken families. Fix the highly correlated problems first, then go hurt the gun business of the guy down the street if that doesn't work at least.
I was going to make my post about this quote alone because it is so important.
The only reason for a bump stock is for the cool factor. Seriously. What do you think the purpose of a bump stock is? If you say "to cause more damage when committing mass murder" then the purpose of piano wire is to strangle people.
Radically reducing? I'm not sure how to respond to this. If you had said "we want to reduce the likelihood of being murdered by firearms by possibly a tiny amount" then I'd understand you. But your proposal doesn't get within light years of "radically reducing"... unless of course you had more - many more - restrictive laws in mind that you aren't telling us about.
"Rational approach" is exactly how Stalin saw it, too. You'll have to define exactly how far you will ever end up going before we believe you aren't going to end up at a police state, since, rationally, that's the only way to stop all the future Paddocks.
Just for clarification, an assault rifle is something only the military and law enforcement has, legally, for an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon. Yes, there are semi-automatic rifles styled to look like assault rifles, but just because something appears to be the same on the outside does not it the same in functionality.
It's like how a desktop computer can appear to be the same as a server on the outside but a desktop does not have the same functionality a server has.
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
There are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands in America - one for every man woman and child!
The NRA has brainwashed Americans into believing that civil society must be an armed camp - personal freedoms and safety can only be achieved at the end of a gun!
I refer again to the Detroit/Windsor comparison - 2 cities within eyesight of each other with totally different approaches to firearms - one has been consumed by decades of gun violence while the other recently went 27 months without a homicide!
Last edited:
everready
New member
Anyone ever heard of The Luby's Cafeteria Massacre?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xu5nm2GAI
everready
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5xu5nm2GAI
everready