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 19th December 2012, 05:32 PM   #121
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,082
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I would sign off on most of BStrong's suggestions. I would, however, go the extra step of establishing an additional layer to the militia, call it the Civil Guard.

Every gun owner is obligated to participate, to make a set number of musters during the year.

This could actually be a community-builder. If you and your neighbor are both armed, it is probably a good idea that you know each other, and will be falling in on the same station if the compost meets the ventilating device.

A bunch of armed and paranoid strangers hunkering in a bunker are not going to be very effective at repelling an invasion or quelling an insurrection, or responding to some emergency like a Sandy-scale storm.

And while we are considering one aspect of the Connecticut tragedy, maybe we shoulld take a look at one other factor and do something about the poor level of socialization inherent in home schooling. Some of the people doing it are really scarey people. Lots of white nationalists are into that, you know.
I have to revisit this, and I still think it's a good idea, but a friend visited me today and had a good observation - I can't take credit for it.

I described my plan, his comment:

"Great idea. Never fly"

How about a civil guard type thing?

Laughs. "You see that Doomsday Preppers ****** Tier 1 gear, 4F bodies."

I laughed so hard I spit up my ice tea.
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 19th December 2012, 05:35 PM   #122
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
SG - it's illegal for the dealers to sell also - and they know it -at this point, if an individual from California even walks into a gunstore in Nevada and attempts to buy anything, they get the 86 and a load of verbal abuse on the side.

This is the only legal way to do it for a Californian buying a firearm in another state. Individual buys from FFL dealer. Dealer ships firearm to FFL dealer in California, buyer does all paperwork and background check and ten day waiting period in California - no person to person sales allowed w/o going through a California FFL dealer with all associated paperwork and BG checks.

Better read the SC decision in Heller v. DC - a blanket ban on firearms across the board is exactly what they found unconstitutional.

The Macdonald v. Chicago decision incorporated Heller onto the states.
You still ignore gun shows and private arms deals and are you sure that it is illegal in every state for a dealer to sell to an out of area consumer? States and even cities and counties have different laws. So if John Doe can't buy a certain gun in his state and his mom lives across the state line where it is legal, obviously for Mr Doe to get a gun is a lot easier psychologically (remember we are talking someone who does not consider him/herself a criminal and would only cross some lines) than if he had to buy the gun on the black market.

If you think gun laws are not problematic being inconsistent across state lines you are in the minority opinion.

As for the Constitution, prove it, prove the previous assault 'weapons' ban was unconstitutional.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th December 2012 at 05:37 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 05:40 PM   #123
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
A federal gun ban will make all the guns disappear just like federal drug bans have made all the drugs disappear.
Biggest straw man argument I've seen in a while on the forum.

If you guys want to argue for more guns, not fewer, don't use this crap in the discussion, it does nothing but waste people's time.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 05:41 PM   #124
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
As usual, like a half dozen topics on the forum, there is no sense arguing with the fanatics that come out to defend their extremist views.

The CT shooting was unacceptable to most people. A majority in the country seem to be expressing they view they'd like some action taken, be it less than perfect or not. Any discussion that gun control is impossible or unconstitutional as if gods bestowed gun rights on humans is nothing more than paranoid denial.

If you don't like people's suggestions about what to do, offer up your own solutions, don't just insult the people who don't buy your world view.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th December 2012 at 05:45 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 05:42 PM   #125
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't see your numbers or your source.
Writes the person who just told GeeMack to make up numbers and then couldn't even provide her own sourcing for what followed after that. What was THAT, anyway?


That:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I know from past looks at this topic and the evidence that the number of documented prevented crimes is few and it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to the number of people killed with the gun from their own household.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 05:49 PM   #126
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
...snip...

If you think gun laws are not problematic being inconsistent across state lines you are in the minority opinion.

As for the Constitution, prove it, prove the previous assault 'weapons' ban was unconstitutional.
I think that inconsistent gun laws across state lines is a problem that a sensible gun control law would address.

I think that asking anyone to prove that the previous AWB is unconstitutional isn't helpful.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 05:58 PM   #127
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel
Posts: 4,609
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As usual, like a half dozen topics on the forum, there is no sense arguing with the fanatics that come out to defend their extremist views...
So is the extremist view the one that abides by the Constitution or the one that goes against it? I'm just wondering on which side of that line that you stand and which one you consider extremist.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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 19th December 2012, 06:19 PM   #128
Polaris
Philosopher
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,599
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As usual, like a half dozen topics on the forum, there is no sense arguing with the fanatics that come out to defend their extremist views.

The CT shooting was unacceptable to most people. A majority in the country seem to be expressing they view they'd like some action taken, be it less than perfect or not. Any discussion that gun control is impossible or unconstitutional as if gods bestowed gun rights on humans is nothing more than paranoid denial.

If you don't like people's suggestions about what to do, offer up your own solutions, don't just insult the people who don't buy your world view.
Who are you talking to, the paranoid fanatics out to defend their extremist views? Please understand the definition of "irony" when you write the bolded statement after insinuating that your opponents find the shooting of 26 students and school staff acceptable.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris 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 19th December 2012, 06:44 PM   #129
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,347
Look, people;
A correspondence I had today went like this, more or less
OP-I am for more controls and restricting sales because a friend of mine has bought a 45ACP, and he keeps it on his home office desk, loaded, all the time. It bothers me, since it's there even when he isn't
me- So, what new law, short of the PTB being able to check on him anytime, come into his house and check that the gun is safely stored, do you expect will change his ways
OP--silence

We already have child endangerment laws--if there are kids in the house and a loaded firearm is readily accessible, and you know of it, what do you do? Let it go because he's a friend?
If a kid gets hold of it and shoots himself or someone else, there is blood on your hands, friend. I know the type-- You'd likely join the crowd of "Why, oh, why, was he able to buy such a horrid thing", and be calling for a ban, when you could have done something about it before it happened!
An unsecured firearm is an immediate and life-threatening danger. It is not on a par with the guy having a couple of joints stashed away, or making moonshine in the basement. It is something that must be corrected, immediately.
It takes a freaking village, people. The police can't always be there, and can't practice prior restraint, so its up to us, the people:
1. Get educated about guns--and not the liberal hate education-learn what they are, how they work, and what they are generally used for
2. Drop a bug in your buddies ears about responsibility and safety if you see irresponsible actions
3. If the situation continues, drop a note to the authorities. And if a person you know--or observe-- is behaving erratically and recklessly with firearms, dial 911.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 19th December 2012, 06:57 PM   #130
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,175
Since when does proposing that all firearms sales require a background check make me a hate filled liberal?
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 06:59 PM   #131
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Since when does proposing that all firearms sales require a background check make me a hate filled liberal?
????
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 19th December 2012, 07:11 PM   #132
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
Originally Posted by DJW View Post
Writes the person who just told GeeMack to make up numbers and then couldn't even provide her own sourcing for what followed after that. What was THAT, anyway?
Sarcasm, d'uh.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 07:14 PM   #133
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
So is the extremist view the one that abides by the Constitution or the one that goes against it? I'm just wondering on which side of that line that you stand and which one you consider extremist.
So no one disagrees with the interpretation of the so clear 2nd Amendment?

Apparently until a couple decades ago, the Amendment wasn't even interpreted to be an 'individual' right, it was interpreted to be a right for the militia, aka cops and similar organized security, to be armed.

The Constitution is not religious dogma, dude. It's a legal document with sometimes not so clear meaning, and sometimes a need for reinterpretation over time as society and circumstances change.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 19th December 2012 at 07:20 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 07:18 PM   #134
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
????
Just a response to your snide remark about liberal hate education.

Back in this thread, I proposed a ban on all firearms and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. A lot simpler than the complications of defining an "assault weapon" and it gets to the core of the issue. Nobody on the pro gun side really wanted to engage. They was far more interest in saying "ban on scary looking guns" than in discussing the real issue.

When the "gun show loophole" discussion was raised, we had endless false claims that there is no such thing as a loophole rather than dealing with the core issue. Why should a transaction with a licensed dealer require vetting of the buyer and record keeping when an almost identical transaction with a private party does not?

There is another issue that seems to have roots in the paranoia of the gun lobby. Why is there a prohibition on the government using computers to track firearms purchases?
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 07:22 PM   #135
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Sarcasm, d'uh.
Sarcasm doesn't really come through that easily for me. Sorry.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 07:24 PM   #136
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I've gone through the liability insurance problem in another thread iirc, but I'll run it past the folks here, too.

In the jurisdiction I reside in, there is a requirement of a $1,000,000.00 liability insurance policy for concealed carry permit holders - essentially closing down the availability of carry permits for low income individuals (non-home owners)

There is already a civil action in preperation that will address this - however - I have always recommened to individuals in the strongest possible terms that if they are considering having a firearm for self defense, even if it's only in the home, they must consider the reality that in the event they use lethal force - even in complete compliance with the law, and even if no-billed by the grand jury - they can potentially find themselves on the receiving end of a civil suit that will bankrupt them, and subject them to a future of debt.

Having a good liability insurance policy can give the individual that finds themselves in that position a little breathing room, but I believe that any such mandate by the federal or state government would be problematic from a constitutional pov.

Believe me, I didn't just start to think about this issue on the 14th - this has been a subject of discussion in my cirle since the 1970's.
Here in Florida, there's a provision in the law that prevents a civil suit against a person who has discharged his weapon in self defense, and it's deemed by the courts that he was within the law.

In other states, it may be a good idea, just for personal reasons, but I agree that if the government required it, it may be ruled unconstitutional. Possibly. Not sure though honestly.
triforcharity 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 19th December 2012, 07:25 PM   #137
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shifting through paradigms
Posts: 44,921
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Who are you talking to, the paranoid fanatics out to defend their extremist views? Please understand the definition of "irony" when you write the bolded statement after insinuating that your opponents find the shooting of 26 students and school staff acceptable.
I never said any such straw thing. I complained they offered no solutions, only complaints about solutions being offered.

The interview Soledad O'Brien had this morning on CNN with the governor of FL was a classic example. No matter how clearly she asked, what do you propose, name one thing you would agree to do. His only answer was to repeat, we should talk about it.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger 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 19th December 2012, 07:26 PM   #138
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Make one up, be my guest.

I know from past looks at this topic and the evidence that the number of documented prevented crimes is few and it is a relatively rare occurrence compared to the number of people killed with the gun from their own household.
Prove it. Make my day.
triforcharity 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 19th December 2012, 07:29 PM   #139
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Just a response to your snide remark about liberal hate education.

Back in this thread, I proposed a ban on all firearms and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. A lot simpler than the complications of defining an "assault weapon" and it gets to the core of the issue. Nobody on the pro gun side really wanted to engage. They was far more interest in saying "ban on scary looking guns" than in discussing the real issue.

When the "gun show loophole" discussion was raised, we had endless false claims that there is no such thing as a loophole rather than dealing with the core issue. Why should a transaction with a licensed dealer require vetting of the buyer and record keeping when an almost identical transaction with a private party does not?

There is another issue that seems to have roots in the paranoia of the gun lobby. Why is there a prohibition on the government using computers to track firearms purchases?
The so-called "Snide remark" was in response to the knee-jerk liberal mantra, repeated here, endlessly, without any attempt to learn the truth, about banning "assault weapons", all of which are already regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as modified by Congress.
The liberal Hate Education that bans a firearm based on cosmetics, rather than function
The liberal hate education that thinks magazine capacity limitations and firearms bans will affect the criminal classes (which would expand, automatically overnight as millions of former law-abiding citizens are declared criminals because of a possession that became illegal)
THAT liberal hate education.

ETA: I see you also engaged in cherry picking, and a straw man, by attacking a particular phraseing, rather than the actual argument. Well done, sir-or-madam!
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Last edited by rwguinn; 19th December 2012 at 07:39 PM.
rwguinn 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 19th December 2012, 07:31 PM   #140
DJW
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 661
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So no one disagrees with the interpretation of the so clear 2nd Amendment?

Apparently until a couple decades ago, the Amendment wasn't even interpreted to be an 'individual' right, it was interpreted to be a right for the militia, aka cops and similar organized security, to be armed.

The Constitution is not religious dogma, dude. It's a legal document with sometimes not so clear meaning, and sometimes a need for reinterpretation over time as society and circumstances change.
You just violated the spirit of the 1st amendment.
DJW 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 19th December 2012, 07:44 PM   #141
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I never said any such straw thing. I complained they offered no solutions, only complaints about solutions being offered.

The interview Soledad O'Brien had this morning on CNN with the governor of FL was a classic example. No matter how clearly she asked, what do you propose, name one thing you would agree to do. His only answer was to repeat, we should talk about it.

We have the guns. We have the 2nd Amendment and the court's interpretations. We already have restrictions, lots of them. Most of us are willing to work within the existing regulations. What do you expect when you ask what we're going to do? We're going to pick apart the silly proposals. We're going to ask the people who want to add restrictions to objectively demonstrate that the restrictions will have positive results aside from just consoling the scared people. If you've given it all you've got and you don't have anything else to offer, oh well. That's not our fault, is it?
GeeMack 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 19th December 2012, 07:47 PM   #142
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel
Posts: 4,609
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So no one disagrees with the interpretation of the so clear 2nd Amendment?

Apparently until a couple decades ago, the Amendment wasn't even interpreted to be an 'individual' right, it was interpreted to be a right for the militia, aka cops and similar organized security, to be armed.

The Constitution is not religious dogma, dude. It's a legal document with sometimes not so clear meaning, and sometimes a need for reinterpretation over time as society and circumstances change.
What!?!? Please tell me when it wasn't interpreted as an individual right by the federal government? "The right of the people to..." is pretty clear while people like you tried (until 2010) to contort the preamble about the militia into meaning that they meant the state and not the people, even after it was pointed out that the constitution is very clear on the distinction between the two throughout its entirety, including the rights that you do support and rely upon the use of "The People" to mean just that. Or do you think that only states and not individuals have the right to free speech, assembly, freedom from unlawful searches and seizures and so on.

Now you might be able to argue that it was open to interpretation because there was no clear ruling on it by the USSC for over 200 years but no interpretation does not mean what you think that it means (and when they finally did interpret it they interpreted it in the exact opposite direction of what you are saying now). Hell, until 1934 there were essentially no limitations at all on what firearms you could own as an individual and as such no reason for any laws to come before the USSC in the first place.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.

Last edited by Sam.I.Am; 19th December 2012 at 07:51 PM. Reason: of to from
Sam.I.Am 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 19th December 2012, 07:48 PM   #143
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You still ignore gun shows and private arms deals and are you sure that it is illegal in every state for a dealer to sell to an out of area consumer?
Yes. You must be a resident of that state to take posession in that state. If you're an out of state customer, it must be paid for in one state, and shipped to an FFL in another state.

Hand Gun Acquired From FFL (Licensed Gun Dealer)

a. Purchase in State of Residency - A person 21 years of age or older may purchase a hand gun from a:

1) FFL located in the buyer’s State of residence, § 922 (b)(1), or

2) FFL at a gun show which is located in a State where the FFL is licensed and the buyer is a resident, § 923 (j), or

3) FFL via U.S. Mail in a State where the FFL is licensed and the buyer is a resident, § 922(c), only if the transaction also complies with § 1715 (only certain persons are qualified to send or receive HGs in the U.S. Mail).

Here's a link.

http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federa...arms_laws.html

If it's purchased from an FFL, it must be delivered to an FFL in their home state.


Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
States and even cities and counties have different laws. So if John Doe can't buy a certain gun in his state and his mom lives across the state line where it is legal, obviously for Mr Doe to get a gun is a lot easier psychologically (remember we are talking someone who does not consider him/herself a criminal and would only cross some lines) than if he had to buy the gun on the black market.

Are you suggesting that since John can't buy X gun in his state, that he ask his mom Jane to purchase said firearm for him?

That's called a straw purchase, and it's a felony.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If you think gun laws are not problematic being inconsistent across state lines you are in the minority opinion.
I actually agree with that.

Here's the solution. No state can make any law prohibiting firearms of any kind, must convert to "shall issue" states WRT: CWP, and no more different rules for CWP for each state.

Universal laws are good, I agree.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As for the Constitution, prove it, prove the previous assault 'weapons' ban was unconstitutional.
He didn't claim that. Did you even look at the cases he cited?
triforcharity 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 19th December 2012, 07:57 PM   #144
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,175
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
The so-called "Snide remark" was in response to the knee-jerk liberal mantra, repeated here, endlessly, without any attempt to learn the truth, about banning "assault weapons", all of which are already regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as modified by Congress.
A semantic argument. As with most laws passed by Congress, the Assault Weapons Ban defined it's own terms. If we are talking about the AWB, we need to use the term as defined in the AWB.

If we attempt to do this again, my suggestion is to simply restrict capacity. Ban any firearm or magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It's a lot easier than listing banned model numbers or coming up with a list of features.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 08:12 PM   #145
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,175
The Federal prohibition of straw purchases is rather narrowly defined. The actual crime is making false statements when filling out form 4473 (the firearms registration form) or a licensed dealer accepting a form 4473 with statements he knows to be false. See section 15 of this document. A private sale that doesn't require filling out form 4473 would not fall under this law.

There may be state laws, but without a paper trail a case would be almost impossible to prove in court.
Kestrel 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 19th December 2012, 10:15 PM   #146
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 6,082
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You still ignore gun shows and private arms deals and are you sure that it is illegal in every state for a dealer to sell to an out of area consumer? States and even cities and counties have different laws. So if John Doe can't buy a certain gun in his state and his mom lives across the state line where it is legal, obviously for Mr Doe to get a gun is a lot easier psychologically (remember we are talking someone who does not consider him/herself a criminal and would only cross some lines) than if he had to buy the gun on the black market.

If you think gun laws are not problematic being inconsistent across state lines you are in the minority opinion.

As for the Constitution, prove it, prove the previous assault 'weapons' ban was unconstitutional.
Here's the link to the ATF webpage.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...0.1.2.3.3.1.10

478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State: Provided, That the provisions of this section:

(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,

(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of § 478.96(c) and

(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with the provisions of §§ 478.30 and 478.97.


§ 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That the provisions of this section:

(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or any acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence; and

(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[T.D. ATF-313, 56 FR 32508, July 17, 1991; 57 FR 1205, Jan. 10, 1992]

I've been at this for a good long time, and I'm really not surprised that in your eyes I have a minority opinion, because I'm fairly sure I'm the only retired LEO/former SOT licensee who's communicating with you.

The former AW ban was instituted in '94, sunseted in 2004, and the SC decision in Heller v. DC was handed down on 26 Jube, 2008. Heller is the decision that recognized that individuals have a right to purchase possess and keep firearms in common use for personal defense:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The SC ruling in Mcdonald v. Chicago was handed down 28 June 2010 incorporated the Second Amendment against the states

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Since at this point I don't believe that you have any interest in learning what the facts of these cases are, I'll post the highlights from Mcdonald:

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 08–1521. Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a Dis-trict of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in thehome. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chi-cago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession byalmost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federalsuit against the City, which was consolidated with two related ac-tions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several re-lated City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amend-ments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are un-constitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previouslyhad upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow estab-lished Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535— which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of theFourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

567 F. 3d 856, reversed and remanded. JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect toParts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Four-teenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.


To be perfectly clear - these rulings obviously were not in effect 1994 - 2004, and therefore the original AWB was not at the time unconstitional, but depending on how a new ban would be crafted, it could well be in conflict with Heller.
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 20th December 2012, 01:16 AM   #147
Globert
Thinker
 
Globert's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Inside the Oort cloud, one A.U. from this medium star.
Posts: 210
There is no "sensible gun control"

The entire discussion oozes from a poisoned well, emotionally distraught people casting about for something to reconcile the horror they saw unfold, replete with breathless tweets and FB posts, and their imagined safety of daily life. There is no middle to be made that can’t be made more “reasonable”, objection by definition,” unreasonable”. To illuminate fantasy one is met with accusations of being the getaway driver, replete with bloodied hands. I am made sick by an agenda that has hitched its wagon to 20 dead children and intends to ride hell bent for leather towards its self-sanctified version of Utopia. The net of oppression casting wide and narrow as opportunity fits; we only ask for a few, we mean to have them all. After all, we can’t be completely safe without all firearms given to the State, the better for Nanny to care for us. We want to control you so you can be free, it’s for your own good, we know what’s best for you, and because we cannot fathom what one could ever need with firearms, we have determined they are unnecessary.
Reality cannot meet utopians ideals, be not dissuaded,
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
-Rahm Emanuel

The bodies were not even cold when the calls for oppression were spouted clarion, placards printed and distributed for “spontaneous’ demonstrations faster than one can say Kinko’s. I am made ill by the opportunists’ craven zeal to spout an agenda faster than actual facts are made public. That a “wave of fresh views on gun control” would seem apparent is that while some would let victims grieve peacefully, the anti-gun groups have seemingly taken a page from the Westboro church and rushed to politicize the funerals the victims of horrible tragedy.
To be clear, Mayor Emanuel did not say this quote to this event, yet it is the mode of operations for activists.
One cannot legislate against insanity, aberrations can and will by definition happen. But to ride like one’s got some kind of mandate because we are all shocked at a low frequency/ high consequence incident is what I call beyond “reason”.
__________________
The hairless monkey cringes, cries out against the storm.
Religion is born.
Globert 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 20th December 2012, 05:48 AM   #148
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,082
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
This *********** load of **** again? When are you EVER going to *********** learn? Is there something that prevents you from learning? Is it something in that **** water you're drinking in Scotland? WTF man???? Seriously???

You're an ignorant fool if you actually believe I'm scared and need a gun. Some may be. However, the vast majority are not, your ignorance notwithstanding.
I was responding to another's post. But since you took the time to add your thoughts, I can see guns for hunting, sport and vermin.

For someone say they want a gun for self defence or protection from a tyrannical government suggests a fear of crime or tyrannical government so extreme that a gun is needed. Otherwise if you say you have no fear then your reason for a gun is the same as saying you want a parachute but never fly.

Lets say you are right and the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny, but know they do not need a gun for such. Then that explains why the USA has the gun culture it has and the problems with gun deaths.

Elsewhere, the idea of getting a gun you do not need is seen as paranoid, fearful and an over reaction. The UK, Canada, Australia and NZ are elsewhere and have far lower rates of gun deaths than the USA. USA gun culture is a fail.
__________________
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 20th December 2012, 05:58 AM   #149
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,082
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
You have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of awareness of many of the issues under discussion. But why don't you start with this... What do you suppose is the primary motivation for the people who want other people to have less guns or no guns, or who want to otherwise restrict people's access to guns?
The prime motive is to reduce the number of gun deaths. What do you think is the reason?


Quote:
Your apparent misunderstanding of the term "assault weapon" is noted. Please do pay more attention.
I was repeating your use of the term, it applies to any other gun.


Quote:
Do you have anything you don't need? If you list your personal possessions here and other people decide you don't need some of them, are you willing to just discard them? Do you feel it's appropriate to choose your possessions, your hobbies, your interests, the ways you choose to make your life safer, more pleasant, more fun, or more interesting based on other people's assessment of your needs?
There is nothing I have or need which can be used to kill the way a gun can.

In the UK you have to show a need for a gun before you can get one. They are the same needs as the USA, excepting self defence, we are not concerned about tyrannical governments. It is not something you can have just because you fancy the idea of having one around. That is part of UK gun culture is the acceptance of need. The USA does not have that as part of its gun culture. The UK's gun culture results in far fewer deaths than the USA's gun culture. The UK's gun culture is more successful than the USA's.
__________________
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 20th December 2012, 06:10 AM   #150
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
 
RenaissanceBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 8,099
Originally Posted by sgtbaker View Post
Am I misunderstanding that? I am reading that as in they leave with their purchase, if they pass, on the same day of application.
I have bought semi-auto shotguns, rifles and pistols in South Carolina and walked out of the store with them within minutes of passing the background check. I don't think any of those purchases took more than an hour.

One day my wife called to tell me a guy was selling a benelli semi-auto shotgun at a yard sale in our neighborhood. She heard it from a deputy sheriff who had just left there. He asked the seller if he could run the serial number to see if it was listed as stolen. The seller agreed and when it came back clean the deputy wished him a good day. I rushed over to buy it just as another guy was walking away with it.
__________________
"Truth does not contradict truth." - St. Augustine
"Faith often contradicts faith. Therefore faith is not an indication of truth." - RenaissanceBiker
RenaissanceBiker 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 20th December 2012, 07:07 AM   #151
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I was responding to another's post. But since you took the time to add your thoughts, I can see guns for hunting, sport and vermin.

Apparently the notion of having a tool which can be used for multiple purposes has gone over your head.

Quote:
For someone say they want a gun for self defence or protection from a tyrannical government suggests a fear of crime or tyrannical government so extreme that a gun is needed. Otherwise if you say you have no fear then your reason for a gun is the same as saying you want a parachute but never fly.

You could catch up here if you'd do a lot more reading and a lot less responding to stuff you're making up.

Quote:
Lets say you are right and the vast majority only want a gun for self defence or protection from tyranny, [...]

No, lets' be totally honest here. Nobody has said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny. Not even close. Not even remotely close. If that's what you're reading, you might wipe some of that dust off your screen. It's distorting the actual words people are typing.

Quote:
[...] but know they do not need a gun for such. Then that explains why the USA has the gun culture it has and the problems with gun deaths.

When your straw man is kicking your butt like that, you're doing it wrong.

Quote:
Elsewhere, the idea of getting a gun you do not need is seen as paranoid, fearful and an over reaction. The UK, Canada, Australia and NZ are elsewhere and have far lower rates of gun deaths than the USA. USA gun culture is a fail.

The gun culture in the US exists, but it's quite different from that fantasy you've created. Your uninformed criticism, incredulity, ignorance, and those figments of your imagination that you're arguing againt have very little bearing on reality.
GeeMack 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 20th December 2012, 08:53 AM   #152
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I'm curious, where do guns rights advocates come down on responsible ownership? Of course, everyone wants owners to be responsible, but is there a line, and if so, where is it? I'm not interested in what IS on the books at the moment, more in what you feel the law should be, ideally.

Where would the ideal fall, between no restrictions at all no matter what you have or have not done, and levels of restriction the USA would simply not be able to stomach at this time, such as licencing/permits for guns for hunting, target shooting etc but no legal place for guns as home defense and extremely restricted ownership of handguns, with everything needing to be locked up in separate locations, such as you have in some other countries?

If YOU got to set it up how would you do it? What do you feel is sensible? Do you feel if done right it would be a good way to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of careless people? Do you feel guns should be kept out of the hands of careless people? Felons? Anyone?

Would love to see some opinions on this stuff without the usual over-polarizing.
Shotguns/longuns/sportsmen use: hunting etc: ok
Handguns: licensed and paperwork after proper training ok

any poopstain wanting/claiming to need a machine can kiss my backside.

Sportsmen need a non NRA spoke org.
Disband and outlaw the NRA.
mikeyx 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 20th December 2012, 08:56 AM   #153
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It is political! The stupidity of whining about people using the incident for political purposes is mind boggling. (BTW, I thought of this when some Republican legislator was going on about this on the news a short time ago, not when I read your post.)
Shut up. It could be an opportunity for peopel to come together for once. It's the social parasites that exploit the occurence to advane political agendas.

They are both sides and neither is any better. They are the tick sucking blood from the backside of America.
mikeyx 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 20th December 2012, 08:58 AM   #154
mikeyx
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,570
[quote=leftysergeant;8856061]I would sign off on most of BStrong's suggestions. I would, however, go the extra step of establishing an additional layer to the militia, call it the Civil Guard.

Every gun owner is obligated to participate, to make a set number of musters during the year.

This could actually be a community-builder. If you and your neighbor are both armed, it is probably a good idea that you know each other, and will be falling in on the same station if the compost meets the ventilating device.
QUOTE]

Thats actually a pretty good idea.
mikeyx 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 20th December 2012, 09:02 AM   #155
Nessie
Philosopher
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch.
Posts: 8,082
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Apparently the notion of having a tool which can be used for multiple purposes has gone over your head.
Yet I listed multiple purposes


Quote:
You could catch up here if you'd do a lot more reading and a lot less responding to stuff you're making up.
Your usual tactic of dodging


Quote:
No, lets' be totally honest here. Nobody has said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny. Not even close. Not even remotely close. If that's what you're reading, you might wipe some of that dust off your screen. It's distorting the actual words people are typing.
That comment comes from the pro gun sides own rhetoric in various gun control threads. In any case, the evidence backs me up.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Reasons to own a gun, protection against crime 67%, targets 66%, hunting 41%

Quote:
When your straw man is kicking your butt like that, you're doing it wrong.......

The gun culture in the US exists, but it's quite different from that fantasy you've created. Your uninformed criticism, incredulity, ignorance, and those figments of your imagination that you're arguing againt have very little bearing on reality.
Not true. The Second Amendment is regularly quoted by the pro gun side as a reason to have guns as Americans have a right to bear arms. The reasons behind that right include self defence and protection against tyranny. The precise definition has been subject to much argument and legal rulings

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

A simple search of such debates and you will find self defence and protection against tyranny cited on many occasions.

In the UK you cannot have gun just because you want one or feel the need for self defence or are concerned about tyranny. Therefore with those reasons not available there are far fewer guns in the UK than in the USA. So the opportunities for criminals and nut cases out to revenge their anger with guns are greatly reduced in the UK.

So the UK has 0.07 firearms homicides per 100,000 to the USA's 2.97 per 100,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map
__________________
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 20th December 2012, 12:27 PM   #156
Lithrael
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Look, people;
A correspondence I had today went like this, more or less
OP-I am for more controls and restricting sales because a friend of mine has bought a 45ACP, and he keeps it on his home office desk, loaded, all the time. It bothers me, since it's there even when he isn't home- So, what new law, short of the PTB being able to check on him anytime, come into his house and check that the gun is safely stored, do you expect will change his ways
OP--silence
"Silence?" :/ And thanks for making up "I am for more controls and restricting sales" out of whole cloth. Look, I'm honestly NOT a gun control freak dishonestly saying BUT I'M JUST LOOKING FOR IDEAS WAH. I'm honestly looking for ideas. The idea that keeps coming to me is that a mandatory class would be a good idea, with some kind of regular follow-up, to make sure people like this have been trained in safe practices and know and remember what they are supposed to be doing, even if there's no practical way to make sure they actually are doing it.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
We already have child endangerment laws--if there are kids in the house and a loaded firearm is readily accessible, and you know of it, what do you do? Let it go because he's a friend?
If a kid gets hold of it and shoots himself or someone else, there is blood on your hands, friend. I know the type-- You'd likely join the crowd of "Why, oh, why, was he able to buy such a horrid thing", and be calling for a ban, when you could have done something about it before it happened!
I'm.. reading this as hostility. There are no children in the home. I'm not calling for any bans. Are you mixing me up with someone else maybe?

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
An unsecured firearm is an immediate and life-threatening danger. (...) It is something that must be corrected, immediately.
It takes a freaking village, people. The police can't always be there, and can't practice prior restraint, so its up to us, the people:
Oh cool, some actual suggested courses of action! Let's see what you've brought:

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
1. Get educated about guns--and not the liberal hate education-learn what they are, how they work, and what they are generally used for
OK yes; this is not a problem. Hope you are not attributing the 'liberal hate' to me here. Sure I'm pretty liberal but I don't hate guns in the slightest.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
2. Drop a bug in your buddies ears about responsibility and safety if you see irresponsible actions
Done, of course.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
3. If the situation continues, drop a note to the authorities. And if a person you know--or observe-- is behaving erratically and recklessly with firearms, dial 911.
This is where I need some clarification. What kind of note would I drop? What would the authorities do? He's not breaking any laws I can find. In Florida, the only firearm storage law I can find only applies if minors can get at it. What would dialing 911 do apart from getting my friend shot? I'm not trying to be obtuse here so please help me out. It seems to me that this kind of thing would end up being very confrontational and adversarial. Is he going to learn from it, or is he going to think some crazy person called the cops on him for no good reason?
Lithrael 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 20th December 2012, 12:29 PM   #157
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Yet I listed multiple purposes

And you omitted other perfectly valid purposes.

Quote:
Your usual tactic of dodging

Pointing out that you've severely misunderstood the discussion isn't dodging. When you create a fairy tale situation, it's not rational for you to suggest that other people should resolve the problems in the fairy tale. But you already know this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
No, lets' be totally honest here. Nobody has said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny. Not even close. Not even remotely close. If that's what you're reading, you might wipe some of that dust off your screen. It's distorting the actual words people are typing.

That comment comes from the pro gun sides own rhetoric in various gun control threads.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:
In any case, the evidence backs me up.

No, it doesn't.

Quote:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Reasons to own a gun, protection against crime 67%, targets 66%, hunting 41%

Yes, you've accounted for 174% of the gun owning population.

Quote:
Not true. The Second Amendment is regularly quoted by the pro gun side as a reason to have guns as Americans have a right to bear arms. The reasons behind that right include self defence and protection against tyranny. The precise definition has been subject to much argument and legal rulings

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

A simple search of such debates and you will find self defence and protection against tyranny cited on many occasions.

Yet you've been unable to show where anybody said the vast majority only want a gun for self defense or protection from tyranny.

Quote:
In the UK you cannot have gun just because you want one or feel the need for self defence or are concerned about tyranny.

Coming from a culture where people are accustomed to being subjects rather than citizens, being treated like children might feel natural. We feel differently about it here.

Quote:
Therefore with those reasons not available there are far fewer guns in the UK than in the USA. So the opportunities for criminals and nut cases out to revenge their anger with guns are greatly reduced in the UK.

So the UK has 0.07 firearms homicides per 100,000 to the USA's 2.97 per 100,000.

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

And we've explained many times that several factors are involved. When someone explains one element, you demand an explanation for another as if it's a freestanding concern. When someone explains that other issue, you jump to yet another, ignoring the previous and the combinations of factors. Of course it's easy to be critical when you're looking at each part in isolation as if you're analyzing it piece by piece looking through a soda straw. Your argument seems to be based on the narrow minded, narrow perspective of the self righteousness people you parrot. And your Gish Gallop tactic is dishonest.

Last edited by GeeMack; 20th December 2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason: Grammar.
GeeMack 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 20th December 2012, 12:36 PM   #158
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
"Silence?" :/ And thanks for making up "I am for more controls and restricting sales" out of whole cloth. Look, I'm honestly NOT a gun control freak dishonestly saying BUT I'M JUST LOOKING FOR IDEAS WAH. I'm honestly looking for ideas. The idea that keeps coming to me is that a mandatory class would be a good idea, with some kind of regular follow-up, to make sure people like this have been trained in safe practices and know and remember what they are supposed to be doing, even if there's no practical way to make sure they actually are doing it.



I'm.. reading this as hostility. There are no children in the home. I'm not calling for any bans. Are you mixing me up with someone else maybe?



Oh cool, some actual suggested courses of action! Let's see what you've brought:



OK yes; this is not a problem. Hope you are not attributing the 'liberal hate' to me here. Sure I'm pretty liberal but I don't hate guns in the slightest.



Done, of course.



This is where I need some clarification. What kind of note would I drop? What would the authorities do? He's not breaking any laws I can find. In Florida, the only firearm storage law I can find only applies if minors can get at it. What would dialing 911 do apart from getting my friend shot? I'm not trying to be obtuse here so please help me out. It seems to me that this kind of thing would end up being very confrontational and adversarial. Is he going to learn from it, or is he going to think some crazy person called the cops on him for no good reason?
First of all, it ain't all about you. Don't conflate your PM to me with what I wrote--they are similar, but I provided some background from other conversations and scenarios. No hostility intended, unless you are one of those who wants to blame it all on the gun, and wash your hands of the entire mess...
IF there are children in the household and a gun is unsecured, there is a case for child endangerment. Hell-in a couple of states (Colorado being one), Parents have had their children take away (temporarily) because they were playing outside in the front yard with no adult in sight (in the Colorado case, back in the 1980's, dad was in the garage, with teh big door open. In those cases, a neighbor called the cops- and got action. Inappropriate action, but something was done because there were kids "endangered"
If you know of a situation that is potentially deadly, and you don't do something, you have blood on your hands if it does turn deadly.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 20th December 2012, 12:39 PM   #159
Lithrael
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by Globert View Post
One cannot legislate against insanity, aberrations can and will by definition happen. But to ride like one’s got some kind of mandate because we are all shocked at a low frequency/ high consequence incident is what I call beyond “reason”.
I started this thread after posting in the one about the little boy accidentally shot and killed by his father in their car, not after any of the mass shooting threads. I believe the statistics are something like 500 deaths annually in the US from accidents, though I haven't looked it up lately. It's not the worst number in the world, but is it not worth addressing at all? Right there in the OP I said I was talking about laws that would encourage gun safety, not laws that would stop bizarre, insane tragedies.

I've already signed the gun ban people off as lost causes, but I was hoping that the 'gun control is stupid' people wouldn't mind showing a little more nuance. And most of them have. Thanks for not contributing.
Lithrael 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 20th December 2012, 12:56 PM   #160
Lithrael
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 885
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
First of all, it ain't all about you.
Heh! OK, the way you attributed it to "OP" must have thrown me off.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
IF there are children in the household and a gun is unsecured, there is a case for child endangerment.
And when there are no children?

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
If you know of a situation that is potentially deadly, and you don't do something, you have blood on your hands if it does turn deadly.
OK.. any interest in addressing the part of the post where I'm asking about that?

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
3. If the situation continues, drop a note to the authorities. And if a person you know--or observe-- is behaving erratically and recklessly with firearms, dial 911.
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
This is where I need some clarification. What kind of note would I drop? What would the authorities do? He's not breaking any laws I can find. In Florida, the only firearm storage law I can find only applies if minors can get at it. What would dialing 911 do apart from getting my friend shot? I'm not trying to be obtuse here so please help me out. It seems to me that this kind of thing would end up being very confrontational and adversarial. Is he going to learn from it, or is he going to think some crazy person called the cops on him for no good reason?
I'm trying to find ideas for what would be useful. Anything that would just create a huge confrontation and not change anyone's behavior, I wouldn't call useful. If at the end of the day there is NOTHING useful that can or could be done as regards an adult's decision to treat his firearm carelessly in his own home (with no children around), then so be it, I guess.

ETA:
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
The idea that keeps coming to me is that a mandatory class would be a good idea, with some kind of regular follow-up, to make sure people like this have been trained in safe practices and know and remember what they are supposed to be doing, even if there's no practical way to make sure they actually are doing it.
Now you've already said you don't think a class would be useful because, essentially, it would be too easy to pass. But I would think that that could be addressed. And I would still think it would have to be better than nothing.

Last edited by Lithrael; 20th December 2012 at 01:02 PM.
Lithrael 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 07:43 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.