JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 14th November 2012, 09:04 AM   #201
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Way to completely ignore the rest of that post. Good call. Clearly something needs to be done about the fact that the sun is set 50% of the year. Someone needs to get on that. Maybe the USG can help them with that.

And while they're at it, force them to move into more populated areas too. That should help Alaskan's with their violence problem.....

Do you only read what you can twist into something negative about America and it's gun laws? Sure seems like it.
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Yes. As long as it's something negative about the US Nessie supports it.
I am sorry I have upset you guys with some of my comments. Please be assured it is only some parts of US gun use, laws and control that I find objectionable.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:15 AM   #202
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by MortFurd View Post
What crook is going to fill out the forms on the gun he stole or bought from some other crook? That's what I'm getting at.
Yes, some of the guns in the black market were stolen. But a lot more were simply diverted from the legitimate market. A diversion made easy and safe by the private seller exemption from registration and background checks.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:17 AM   #203
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Canada tried it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

After $2 billion or so with -0- benefit, and four or so years of amnesty for registration, the government called it a day and scrapped the whole scheme.

........

ETA - I believe our foriegn posters are missing something else about about registration as a crime fighting tool - Felons are exempt from registration and perjury related to completing 4473 forms etc.

Fifth Amendent precludes self incrimination.
All the suggestions I listed before work in the UK. If it did not work in Canada then there is no chance it would work in the USA.

Regarding your comment about registration, I think you are not understanding how it does work as a crime fighting tool. If you find an unregistered gun, you seize it and charge the person in possession of it with an offence that carries a very stiff penalty. Hence it acts as a deterrent that in particular targets gang members.

In the UK Sec1 of the Firearms Act 1968 governs illegal possession of a firearm, the sentencing guidelines are here

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s..._firearms_act/


"Possession of a firearm or ammunition without certificate is triable either way
Summary - 6 months/maximum fine. On indictment - when aggravated (see section 4(4)) 7 years, otherwise 5 years."

So in the UK if you stop a gang member and find a gun that is not registered or even ammunition whereby they do not have a licence for that type of gun, 5 years in prison, or 7 is there is an aggravation.

The police here rarely find gang members in possession of guns. When they do use them they come out of hiding, get used and dumped or back into hiding as quickly as possible.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:21 AM   #204
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
"Possession of a firearm or ammunition without certificate is triable either way
Summary - 6 months/maximum fine. On indictment - when aggravated (see section 4(4)) 7 years, otherwise 5 years."

So in the UK if you stop a gang member and find a gun that is not registered or even ammunition whereby they do not have a licence for that type of gun, 5 years in prison, or 7 is there is an aggravation.

The police here rarely find gang members in possession of guns. When they do use them they come out of hiding, get used and dumped or back into hiding as quickly as possible.
If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).

Last edited by lobosrul; 14th November 2012 at 09:23 AM.
lobosrul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:27 AM   #205
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by joesixpack View Post
A murder rate of .004% is disaster? Wow, your standards for "disaster" are pretty low.
Alaska's homicide by firearm rate is 2.68 per 100,000. That is slightly under the US average of 2.97 per 100,000. Canada's is 0.51 per 100,000, England & Wales it is 0.7 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...map-statistics
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:34 AM   #206
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
.....
2. You were not clear. You implied that the US was somehow responsible for what the domestic gun market does.
3. If they're trafficking internationally, then they are, by definition, an international market.

.....
I don't get your points 2 and 3. The US is responsible for the state of its domestic gun market and exporting and smuggling of its guns abroad. That is the US government and those responsible for dealing with guns, not every Tom, Dick and Harry in the US for those who think when I speak out about guns I am referring to and condemning the US as a whole.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:37 AM   #207
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by MortFurd View Post
What crook is going to fill out the forms on the gun he stole or bought from some other crook? That's what I'm getting at.
But that is the whole point, you then go after the guns and ammunition the crooks have. No license, gun not registered, off to prison you go.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:40 AM   #208
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).
Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:49 AM   #209
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
The reactions to this news story are from people seriously ignorant about the UK's firearms law.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8805..._find_mystery/

A man found a bullet out side the back of his shop in York. He phoned the police who came and took it away. Reactions include;

"The police were called for this??", "Total over-reaction...", "Is this really newsworthy?" The answer is yes because if he had kept the bullet he is contravening Sec 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and he could get up to 6 months in prison and a fine, if the prosecution decided to go in a lesser court, otherwise 5 years. The same is true for the person who had the bullet who then dropped it. Firearms licence holders are expected to account for their guns and ammunition and handle them safely. If it was a criminal prowling about with a gun and dropped the bullet, the police would want to know about that as well.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 09:59 AM   #210
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
If said "gang member" was a convicted felon then he'd be looking at doing time for simply possessing a firearm in the US. I'm not sure the sentence would be quite as harsh (it certainly would be in NY), but its the same concept. Even if he wasn't a convicted felon, being caught with a concealed firearm without a CCL is a pretty serious offence in most areas of the US (Vermont and Alaska being exceptions).
Oddly, many states make it difficult to check on the validity of a CCL. Here in Colorado, the state is prohibited from putting information about concealed carry licenses into the computer system used to verify drivers licenses. The only way law enforcement or the courts can check if a CCL is valid, or if a suspect has a CCL is to make a separate inquiry to each county sheriff where the suspect may have gotten a CCL. Yet again, gun lobby paranoia takes precedence over public safety.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:05 AM   #211
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
In the UK all that is needed is a Police National Computer (PNC) check. That lists everyone in the UK who has convictions, is a missing person, is a disqualified driver and/or who has a firearms certificate. It takes seconds to do.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:15 AM   #212
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Alaska's homicide by firearm rate is 2.68 per 100,000. That is slightly under the US average of 2.97 per 100,000. Canada's is 0.51 per 100,000, England & Wales it is 0.7 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...map-statistics
Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.
lobosrul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:17 AM   #213
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.
So if I leave a single bullet in my pocket after visiting the range and am caught walking around with it I should face a lengthy prison term?! Yeah that seems logical.
lobosrul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:30 AM   #214
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.
There is a real difference in attitudes about firearms. According to the ICVS, few Canadians list "personal protection" as the reason they own a firearm. In the US it is one of the top reasons for owning a firearm. Also handguns, the most common weapon used for firearms homicide in the US, are seldom present in Canadian households.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:35 AM   #215
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
So if I leave a single bullet in my pocket after visiting the range and am caught walking around with it I should face a lengthy prison term?! Yeah that seems logical.


I presume since you have left a range you are a legal firearms holder, so you would not be breaking the law.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:36 AM   #216
Renaiconna
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The Columbine shooters acquired two rifles and a shotgun from private sellers at a gun show while under the legal age for buying from a federally licensed dealer. The fourth weapon was the illegal sale of a handgun set up at the same gun show.

The Virginia Tech shooter was known to be mentally ill by the courts, but that information never made it into the database used for instant checks. The shooters in Tucson and Aurora were also known to have mental health issues, but these never came to the attention of the court system. At least one Denver area gun shop turned away the Aurora shooter because he was acting so flaky.

In three of these four cases the background check system was not aware that the buyers had severe mental problems. Clearly there is room for improvement in this system.

Please tell me that "improvement" isn't requiring persons with mental illnesses to self-declare their medical status to the government in order to obtain a firearm.
Renaiconna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:41 AM   #217
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
UK firearms licence holders are required to declare any illnesses that may affect their ability to have a gun safely. They sign part of the application/renewal form to allow the police to contact their GP and ask about any health condition.

It sounds daft, but it is backed up by questions asked of the two referees that the person must provide. So to get round any illness, the person and both their referees have to lie to or mislead the police.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:47 AM   #218
lobosrul
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post


I presume since you have left a range you are a legal firearms holder, so you would not be breaking the law.
... and what if I was only shooting a friends gun? Or does this new set of hypothetical draconian laws require a license to even touch a gun?
lobosrul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:19 PM   #219
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
... and what if I was only shooting a friends gun? Or does this new set of hypothetical draconian laws require a license to even touch a gun?
You can shoot another's gun on private property under their supervision so long you are over a certain age, depending on the type of gun. If you then walk away outwith that land with a bullet, or gun, or even a part of a gun and you are no longer under supervision, you have committed a crime.

This is not a hypothetical draconian law, it is the law in the UK, primarily the Firearms Act 1968.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/contents

So in the UK check your pockets if you have been shooting with a friend or at a range where you borrowed a gun.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:27 PM   #220
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by lobosrul View Post
Yet Canada has many times more guns per person than the UK. So, maybe gun control is less important on the homicide rate than you make it out to be. And until very recently Canada's gun control laws weren't much different than the USA's.
Maybe the police in Canada aren't wasting time and resources by trying to account for every stray cartridge found.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:40 PM   #221
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Oddly, many states make it difficult to check on the validity of a CCL. Here in Colorado, the state is prohibited from putting information about concealed carry licenses into the computer system used to verify drivers licenses. The only way law enforcement or the courts can check if a CCL is valid, or if a suspect has a CCL is to make a separate inquiry to each county sheriff where the suspect may have gotten a CCL. Yet again, gun lobby paranoia takes precedence over public safety.
Colorado must be behind the times.

Most states with "shall-issue" carry permit scemes have computerized searchable databases available for LEO's encountering civilians with carry permits.

Even California, which is a "may-issue" state, has a database that can be accessed by individual officers on the street for carry license and registered firearm verification - handguns and named assault weapons along with assault weapons by feature must be registered.

Long guns will be registered at point of sale in 2013.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #222
Renaiconna
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
UK firearms licence holders are required to declare any illnesses that may affect their ability to have a gun safely. They sign part of the application/renewal form to allow the police to contact their GP and ask about any health condition.

It sounds daft, but it is backed up by questions asked of the two referees that the person must provide. So to get round any illness, the person and both their referees have to lie to or mislead the police.
Any illnesses that MAY affect their ability? Are mental illnesses specifically included in that law? Does the law make a distinction between chronic and acute illnesses?

Something about that just smells wrong to me; maybe it's the part where the government/authorities are requiring knowledge of sensitive medical information in order for me to enjoy my Constitutional right.
Renaiconna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:46 PM   #223
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Mental illnesses and addictions are two matters that would greatly impact on a persons ability to safely possess a gun.

Regarding chronic and acute illnesses, for example if someone was to have a bout of serious depression and the police were to find out they can and have had their guns seized from them. If they recover they can and have had their guns returned to them. If they don't they don't get their guns back. I know of guns being seized from someone who was found to be an alcoholic, having turned to drink after his wife died.

I think that is perfectly reasonable. If someone was found to be mentally ill in the USA, would they be allowed to keep their guns?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:52 PM   #224
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,871
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Then toughen up your sentences and make it clear, that if you do not have a licence or a gun registered to you then even having one bullet in your pocket and off to prison you go. A previous conviction and you are looking at 7 years as that is an aggravation.
We have that here too.

Doesn't seem to have the same effect as it does in the UK.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 02:06 PM   #225
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
We have that here too.

Doesn't seem to have the same effect as it does in the UK.
Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference. We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

Since Chicago's gang and crime problems are on a pretty monumental scale, I would imagine there is a lot of work to be done compared to in Glasgow and its knife crime and gangs.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 02:11 PM   #226
Renaiconna
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Mental illnesses and addictions are two matters that would greatly impact on a persons ability to safely possess a gun.

Regarding chronic and acute illnesses, for example if someone was to have a bout of serious depression and the police were to find out they can and have had their guns seized from them. If they recover they can and have had their guns returned to them. If they don't they don't get their guns back. I know of guns being seized from someone who was found to be an alcoholic, having turned to drink after his wife died.

I think that is perfectly reasonable. If someone was found to be mentally ill in the USA, would they be allowed to keep their guns?
That is absolutely terrible and only further stigmatizes those with a mental illness as inherently dangerous (not to mention possibly puts a permanent label on someone who may have simply had a single episode).

In the US, if one is mentally ill, but in no danger to oneself or others (which is most mentally ill people most of the the time), then that person (like all American citizens) has a right to be secure in their personal belongings, weapons included.

Just because I was hospitalized when I was 18 for depression shouldn't mean that I don't have the right to defend myself/hunt/target shoot with guns, 10 years of therapy later.

Also, how on earth would the police find out someone's mental state before they began an episode without seriously invading the privacy of an otherwise law-abiding citizen?
Renaiconna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 02:45 PM   #227
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,016
It does depend on the mental illness and severity, as I showed with my example.

I also explained that the police ask for the applicant to declare anything and to provide two referees who are asked if they know of any issues. That is made clear to the applicant and they sign to show they approve of such checks taking place.

I take it the US police would seize a gun off a person found to be paranoid schizophrenic?
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:42 PM   #228
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Fully autos used illegaly are vanishingly rare. Homicide using rifles (including scary looking semi-auto assualt rifles) is pretty rare. Talk of banning AR-15's and the like is purely an exercise in pandering for votes based on emotion (unfounded fear). They simply aren't being used in crimes in any number… despite millions being in circulation.
Yes, I know. I'd ban them in case criminals used them when handguns stopped being available. Maybe they wouldn't, or maybe they aren't even as good at killing people as rifles and shotguns anyway. This isn't a large part of my argument, more of an addendum, but your point won't dissuade me because it deals only with a scenario where handguns are legal.


Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The problem is, your method - on your assumptions - might lower the murder rate in 30 or 40 years. (I think some studies place it in the centuries given the amount of guns out there). So there is potentially no real impact for a lifetime… Given that - shouldn't the focus be instead on tackling the societal issues of the high crime areas, rather than penalizing law-abiding gun owners in a "this feels like we are doing something (but actually we aren't helping)"?
I recognise that problem. Society would basically have to make a decision that wouldn't benefit society at that time, which i'll admit is unlikely. I don't think that makes it a bad idea though, just an idea with a delayed payoff.
__________________
"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune
stokes234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:43 PM   #229
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
That right there pretty much blows your entire silly plan out of the water....
That entire post was horrific.
__________________
"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune
stokes234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:43 PM   #230
Renaiconna
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It does depend on the mental illness and severity, as I showed with my example.

I also explained that the police ask for the applicant to declare anything and to provide two referees who are asked if they know of any issues. That is made clear to the applicant and they sign to show they approve of such checks taking place.
So, you have to volunteer the information? And if you didn't volunteer it and your referees weren't aware, you could still get a gun? I'm confused as to how that makes any sense, unless they require you to receive a psychiatric evaluation in order to obtain a gun license.

Originally Posted by Nessie
I take it the US police would seize a gun off a person found to be paranoid schizophrenic?
As long as the person is licensed to carry in that jurisdiction and isn't brandishing or threatening anyone, probably not.

Most of those with a mental illness aren't constantly in crisis-mode or flipping out or whathaveyou. If they abide by the law, we shouldn't curtail their rights. And, frankly, the government has ZERO business in one's medical history unless one volunteers the information oneself.

Do they not have HIPAA-type legislation in the UK?
Renaiconna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:46 PM   #231
stokes234
Master Poster
 
stokes234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Better read this first.

Imagining Gun Control in America, understanding the remainder problem, Wake Forest Law Review

http://wakeforestlawreview.com/imagi...ainder-problem

Best case scenario based on registration/surrender number experiences in jurisdictions and countries that have banned firearms, a 400 year supply of firearms and ammo would be retained by civilians in the US, regardless of law.

Please note: not an NRA or pro-gun publication or author.
I'd need to see the methodology there to understand how they calculated that (seems like it would have far too many variables to be calculated, though i'm willing to conside their argument) - but I can't open the article for some reason.

To add though, you wouldn't have to remove all guns to see a decrease in gun crime; you'd just have to make it risky enough and/or expensive enough to gang members that they feel less inclined to carry them, and this should achieve the aim of reducing gun crime.
__________________
"I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

Last edited by stokes234; 14th November 2012 at 04:04 PM. Reason: clarity
stokes234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:47 PM   #232
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,871
Originally Posted by Renaiconna View Post
As long as the person is licensed to carry in that jurisdiction and isn't brandishing or threatening anyone, probably not.

Most of those with a mental illness aren't constantly in crisis-mode or flipping out or whathaveyou. If they abide by the law, we shouldn't curtail their rights. And, frankly, the government has ZERO business in one's medical history unless one volunteers the information oneself.

Do they not have HIPAA-type legislation in the UK?
Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:06 PM   #233
Renaiconna
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?
IIRC, any of them, as long as that person is properly licensed for their gun and jurisdiction and as long as that person has not committed any felonies.

Just because someone has a mental illness, even a "scary" one, does not preclude that person from enjoying the same rights and liberties as every other American citizen.

BTW, a person has an illness; that person is not his/her illness (i.e. "person with paranoid schizophrenia" vs "paranoid schizophrenic").

ETA: I conferred with my State's Attorney friend, and he concurred with the addition that if that person is declared by the COURTS as mentally unfit and a danger to society, then, no, that person cannot own a gun. And, for clarity mentally ill != mentally unfit.

Last edited by Renaiconna; 14th November 2012 at 04:28 PM. Reason: updated with new info
Renaiconna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:46 PM   #234
Courier
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,237
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
The Columbine shooters acquired two rifles and a shotgun from private sellers at a gun show while under the legal age for buying from a federally licensed dealer. The fourth weapon was the illegal sale of a handgun set up at the same gun show.

The Virginia Tech shooter was known to be mentally ill by the courts, but that information never made it into the database used for instant checks. The shooters in Tucson and Aurora were also known to have mental health issues, but these never came to the attention of the court system. At least one Denver area gun shop turned away the Aurora shooter because he was acting so flaky.

In three of these four cases the background check system was not aware that the buyers had severe mental problems. Clearly there is room for improvement in this system.
Requiring mental health checks in order to buy a firearm, would open up a smelly can of worms and probably be found unConstitutional.
Courier is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 06:06 PM   #235
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Give it time and with a concerted effort to stop and search all gang members and it should start to make a difference. We have seen knife crime fall with increased targeted stop searches and mandatory sentences.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/c...crime.19134633

Since Chicago's gang and crime problems are on a pretty monumental scale, I would imagine there is a lot of work to be done compared to in Glasgow and its knife crime and gangs.
California has penalty enhancement for firearms possession or use in the commission of a crime across the board, and it doesn't seem to interfer in gang violence in the least

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms

California Bureau of firearms, a division of the DOJ.

Read and be amazed.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 06:11 PM   #236
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Huh? In what state is it legal for a paranoid schizophrenic to possess firearms?
You need to have been involuntarily commited or held under a 5150 hold (ca. code number for a mentally disturbed individual) or adjudicated to be mentally incompetent to trigger the mental disabilty clause.

Individuals with PTSD, BP etc. aren't restricted from owning firearms, but many people would probably want them to fall into the restricted category.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 01:53 AM   #237
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London ish
Posts: 5,315
Originally Posted by Renaiconna View Post
Any illnesses that MAY affect their ability? Are mental illnesses specifically included in that law? Does the law make a distinction between chronic and acute illnesses?

Something about that just smells wrong to me; maybe it's the part where the government/authorities are requiring knowledge of sensitive medical information in order for me to enjoy my Constitutional right.
What constitutional right?
__________________
Eviscerate the delusional.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:21 AM   #238
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I can see a good justification for being armed against bears. I am not so sure about the argument for those who are frail to be armed.
All life on Earth is related. How many generations to the last common ancestor is enough that we can morally deploy lethal force in defense of ourselves or close relatives against our more-distant cousins?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:22 AM   #239
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,069
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What constitutional right?
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights as the SC cases Heller and MacDonald have defined it - an individual not otherwise prohibited has a right to possess a firearm in common use for self defense purposes.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:23 AM   #240
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
What constitutional right?
In the US, the Second Amendment. The right of "the people" to "keep (own and have at hand) and bear (carry) arms".
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.