Guns

[Zenith]

A point of interest for me is the psychological boundaries for each method of killing. Stabbing or beating someone to death gives no real degree of separation. A gun - a bit more, with a drone - much more. The old "Would you eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?" follows a similar line of thought. I know if I had to kill an animal or a person, I'd rather use the method with the highest psychological separation.

Not that it means that rights to stuff or levels of guilt should follow in any way though. As I said, just a point of interest.

I agree. This is a huge debate in all places where tech is advancing. Weaponry, socializing, work.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Supreme Court of the United States rules 9-0 that a felon barred from owning guns is legally allowed to sell them under court approval.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...Firewire - HORIZON 5-18-15 Monday with Malkin

 

[FoolKiller]

Supreme Court of the United States rules 9-0 that a felon barred from owning guns is legally allowed to sell them under court approval.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/18/supreme-court-makes-major-gun-ruling/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire - HORIZON 5-18-15 Monday with Malkin

That's like having a teenaged bartender.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

 

[BobK]

Wouldn't the only way a felon barred from owning guns be (legally) to already have them when he became a felon? In which case I see no problem with the felon selling them as opposed to the government seizing them or some such.

Provided,of course the guns were not involved in the person becoming a felon (armed robbery, etc).

This is the issue in the cited article. I have no problem with the ruling, although I can appreciate the concerns if he had just given or sold them them to his wife.

 

[LeMansAid]

That's like having a teenaged bartender.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

If all potential weapons should be treated equally, why would you be unsure of your thoughts even if he was allowed to simply keep his guns? Without the need for the loophole method.

Provided,of course the guns were not involved in the person becoming a felon (armed robbery, etc).

This is the issue in the cited article. I have no problem with the ruling, although I can appreciate the concerns if he had just given or sold them them to his wife.

If the crime was a hit and run, you'd have it that he would not be able to keep his car?

The guns were legally owned, and as far as I can tell had nothing to do with his crime. Why should he have to get rid of them at all? Should he have to rid himself of all potential weapons?

 

[BobK]

If the crime was a hit and run, you'd have it that he would not be able to keep his car?

The guns were legally owned, and as far as I can tell had nothing to do with his crime. Why should he have to get rid of them at all? Should he have to rid himself of all potential weapons?

No, not at all. It's just that guns are typically seized when used in the commission of a crime, e.g. murder etc. But now that you mention it, yeah, no reason why the owner shouldn't be able to dispose of it as (s)he sees fit after they're no longer needed as evidence.

 

[squadops]

Why should he have to get rid of them at all? Should he have to rid himself of all potential weapons?

In the U.S. a convicted felon is not allowed to own a firearm, if that is what you are asking.

I like the ruling provided the sale is timely and proof is provided, police departments have gotten into the habit of selling criminals property to fund their departments which I do not like.

 

[LeMansAid]

But now that you mention it, yeah, no reason why the owner shouldn't be able to dispose of it as (s)he sees fit after they're no longer needed as evidence.

"Dispose"? Can't they just keep them if they choose?

In the U.S. a convicted felon is not allowed to own a firearm, if that is what you are asking.

Talking more principle than law.

 

[squadops]

In that case I think the penalty should only apply to felons who's crime involved a firearm.

 

[LeMansAid]

In that case I think the penalty should only apply to felons who's crime involved a firearm.

What of the car example I used above?

Post #3395

 

[squadops]

I don't mind the way those laws are working at the moment, for someone to have their driving privileges permanently revoked they need to show a history of offenses. I feel the same way about all property rights, impounding seems punishment enough. If they want money they can just add fines.

Where I live if someone is caught driving when/where they are not allowed, the car can be confiscated regardless of who the owner is, that is harsh

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't mind the way those laws are working at the moment, for someone to have their driving privileges permanently revoked they need to show a history of offenses.

But the car itself is what's in question. Is it equal to a gun when a crime is committed? Should they have their car taken away?

Should one who commits a crime with a knife be denied steak knives?

 

[squadops]

The property should not be taken away, if the law states one cannot own something that is otherwise not illegal to posses that should not give the right to the government to take it. Just as the gun case in question, make sure the property is sold, given away, whatever.

 

[LeMansAid]

The property should not be taken away, if the law states one cannot own something that is otherwise not illegal to posses that should not give the right to the government to take it. Just as the gun case in question, make sure the property is sold, given away, whatever.

Why can't they keep their possessions though? One error, you break a pedestrian's leg with your car, and you're forced to dispose of the car?

 

[squadops]

Not likely, just as having your right to own a firearm isn't easily stripped, neither would your right to own a car. The problem that's happening here at the moment is not that your right to own a car is stripped but rather having any car taken when illegally driven. It's a law to discourage driving while driving privileges are revoked however nothing is stopping another car from being purchased.

Lets say an offender is not allowed any possession of firearms or automobiles, owned or not, but continues to do so Continued confiscations aren't going to solve the recurring offence, it's time to go to jail.

Car confiscations are generally practiced under city ordinance, I don't think it's likely we will see state or federal laws ever taking away someone's right to own a car.

In your scenario a forced disposal would only occur if the offender had prior similar offences and at the time didn't have the privilege to drive.

 

[LeMansAid]

Car confiscations are generally practiced under city ordinance, I don't think it's likely we will see state or federal laws ever taking away someone's right to own a car.

That's quite odd, considering how deadly they can be.

In your scenario a forced disposal would only occur if the offender had prior similar offences and at the time didn't have the privilege to drive.

I assume one equally would have to cause harm on several occasions with an illegal gun to run into trouble with ownership there as well?

It looks to me like we're being unfair on gun owners or extremely generous with owners of other potentially deadly weapons here.

 

[squadops]

I assume one equally would have to cause harm on several occasions with an illegal gun to run into trouble with ownership there as well?

Any felony conviction revokes the right to bear arms, crimes involving using a gun have nothing to do with it.

It looks to me like we're being unfair on gun owners or extremely generous with owners of other potentially deadly weapons here.

A potential weapon is not the same as a weapon, firearms aren't potential weapons, they are weapons. You might be surprised to know what the other revoked right of a felon is. The right to vote.

 

[LeMansAid]

Any felony conviction revokes the right to bear arms, crimes involving using a gun have nothing to do with it.

Do you think that's fair?

A potential weapon is not the same as a weapon, firearms aren't potential weapons, they are weapons.

Well, gun freedom principles need to be consistent. The car is oft referenced as an equally deadly tool in relation to a gun. Do you think that your categorisation would be.....

....... great solace to people stabbed or beaten to death.

Hell, you can kill someone with a feather duster if you try hard enough. Again, it seems that laws, but more importantly for this conversation - principles, are very inconsistent.

 

[squadops]

1. of course not.
2. it's not my categorisation, I defend the right to own both types of property.
3. It's both but the laws carry more weight.

The whole thing is moot in reality because if a convicted felon wants to use a firearm to commit a crime he's going to. The chances of the law preventing a crime from being committed has to be quite low.

 

[LeMansAid]

The whole thing is moot in reality because if a convicted felon wants to use a firearm to commit a crime he's going to. The chances of the law preventing a crime from being committed has to be quite low.

You would support there being no restrictions on guns, regardless of criminal history then?

* I apologise, that might be my last question.

 

[Sanji Himura]

For the record, here is a list of other rights (besides guns) that you lose if you happen to be a felon convicted of a crime in the US:

The Right to Vote. 48 states do not allow a felon to vote while in prison (the two exceptions are Maine and Vermont), and only nine states do not allow a felon to vote for a set time after completing their probation or parole. Three states, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida, impose a lifetime ban on felons from voting unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or the State legislature. Florida is somewhat unique as the individual must be pardoned by the Governor and the majority of the State Cabinet.

The Right to Sit on a Jury. 31 states and the Federal system do not allow felons to sit on any form of jury. As a result, 6% of the adult population, including 30% of black men (according to statistics from 2003), are a class of citizens defined and punished by the criminal justice system but unable to impact its function. Felon jury exclusion is less visible than felony disenfranchisement, and few socio-legal scholars have challenged the statutes that withhold a convicted felon’s opportunity to sit on a jury. The Supreme Court currently does not recognize the right to sit on a jury as a fundamental right.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's like having a teenaged bartender.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Let me clarify this:

Anyone who has ever interacted with me on these forums should know how I would feel about a teenaged bartender. I don't care. But the law currently stands that because he is under the age to drink he isn't even supposed to sell or serve alcohol, depending on the state, and sometimes even business policy.

I'm not sure how I feel about this ruling because it appears to create a legal hypocrisy.


From a personal standpoint, if I owned a business that sold guns I would not allow someone convicted of a violent crime to handle them. Similarly, in the car situation, someone with a history of violent vehicular assault or homicide (intentional or not) would not get near a company car.



It should be pointed out that instances of vehicular crimes, including non-violent, do result in the removal of their driver's license.

I don't think that a felon who is guilty of something that never involved a weapon should have the right to own a gun removed. But someone who uses an item in a violent way toward another person should, within reasonable ability to enforce, at least have a minimum period after getting out of prison where they are not allowed access to that item.

 

[justin credible]

Hi all I have been away for a while and just logged in to see what's going on.
I voted for complete illegality in civilian ownership. Reason being I am from the UK and cannot for the life of me see why anyone needs a gun. In the Uk 99% of us are raised without guns hence I cannot see the point in such a dangerous weapon being in civilian hands much the same as why this country has cracked down on knives heavily. I know in the states guns are more of an everyday thing and ownership of guns is the norm, Let those running the states decide what's right for America but in the UK my opinion is they are not required as there is far to many idiots here who think they can play Rambo if they had access to a gun. Raoul Moat for one.
Strict control in the UK doesn't work as very recently and regularly the guns are stolen from legit gun owners and used for crime. If they didn't have them they couldn't steal them. And even the most responsible gun owner I ask WHY do you need a gun?

 

[Joel]

And even the most responsible gun owner I ask WHY do you need a gun?

Hmm, well that's easy!

Strict control in the UK doesn't work as very recently and regularly the guns are stolen from legit gun owners and used for crime. If they didn't have them they couldn't steal them.

One reason people have guns is to protect themselves from those who use them for crime. Another reason is to hunt, or to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and pop cans. Some people own them because they're fun to shoot. Some people own them because they think they look cool. Some do because they're military reenactors. Some do because they're geeks and they're interested in the engineering of them. Some people collect guns for their aesthetic or historical relevance. Some people do competitive shooting (an Olympic sport).

The most basic reason someone would "need" a gun is for protection. The second would be for pest control, or in some cases sustenance hunting. That's besides the point though, it's a flawed question from the start. Why should it be up to responsible <object> owners to justify to others why they "need" <object>?

 

[Brett]

One reason people have guns is to protect themselves from those who use them for crime. Another reason is to hunt, or to shoot clay pigeons, paper targets, and pop cans. Some people own them because they're fun to shoot. Some people own them because they think they look cool. Some do because they're military reenactors. Some do because they're geeks and they're interested in the engineering of them. Some people collect guns for their aesthetic or historical relevance. Some people do competitive shooting (an Olympic sport).

I did one of those today during my lunch break. I went to the range and put about 50 of 60 rounds on a steel target at 200 yards. It was awesome and a nice stress relief from an otherwise crappy morning.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't think that a felon who is guilty of something that never involved a weapon should have the right to own a gun removed. But someone who uses an item in a violent way toward another person should, within reasonable ability to enforce, at least have a minimum period after getting out of prison where they are not allowed access to that item.

Will press on this for clarification - in accordance with your ideology, if a violent crime occurred but didn't involve a gun, would you have the right to own a gun removed?

 

[Famine]

In the Uk 99% of us are raised without guns hence I cannot see the point in such a dangerous weapon being in civilian hands much the same as why this country has cracked down on knives heavily.

Since no-one needs knives, right?

99% of people are raised without cricket bats, baseball bats, golf clubs or hockey sticks either. And as for screwdrivers, wheelbraces and hammers, don't get me started - who needs such a dangerous weapon‽

 

[Sanji Himura]

Hi all I have been away for a while and just logged in to see what's going on.I voted for complete illegality in civilian ownership. Reason being I am from the UK and cannot for the life of me see why anyone needs a gun. In the Uk 99% of us are raised without guns hence I cannot see the point in such a dangerous weapon being in civilian hands much the same as why this country has cracked down on knives heavily.

I can sum it up with a sentence, Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Sorry, but that is a fundamental truth. Mass murders happen in a lot of gun-free zones like schools, political rallies with a candidate, sporting events and lots of places where they sell alcohol.

Generally speaking, most gun control laws don't work because it is not the criminals that the law targets, it is law abiding citizens. Our government is currently taking a lot of flack with everyone because there is communication between the VA (Veteran's Affairs) and the DOJ by disqualifying a lot of veterans, some that fought in the recent wars in Afhganistan and Iraq, from owning a gun. Think about that for a second. Our Department of Justice is more concerned about veterans owning guns than actually pursuing criminals who don't give a 🤬 about our laws.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hi all I have been away for a while and just logged in to see what's going on.
I voted for complete illegality in civilian ownership. Reason being I am from the UK and cannot for the life of me see why anyone needs a gun. In the Uk 99% of us are raised without guns hence I cannot see the point in such a dangerous weapon being in civilian hands much the same as why this country has cracked down on knives heavily. I know in the states guns are more of an everyday thing and ownership of guns is the norm, Let those running the states decide what's right for America but in the UK my opinion is they are not required as there is far to many idiots here who think they can play Rambo if they had access to a gun. Raoul Moat for one.
Strict control in the UK doesn't work as very recently and regularly the guns are stolen from legit gun owners and used for crime. If they didn't have them they couldn't steal them. And even the most responsible gun owner I ask WHY do you need a gun?

The if they didn't have them they couldn't steal them bit is quite flawed, hindsight is 20/20 though. It's about on the same level as saying "if we could only go back in time and stop the creation of guns then no one would ever have committed a crime with one". Let's forget the idea that criminal intent doesn't stop due to the lack of a certain weapon...since it doesn't.

Also there are various places a criminal could get a gun...for example if the guy who owns a gun shop didn't decide to go into that business he wouldn't have had his place of business illegally broken into and such weapons taken. If the pawn shop owner didn't allow such things to be pawned same story. If a company didn't manufacture guns perhaps their manufacturing plant no matter how secure wouldn't be a target. The point is something illegal was done to obtain these items, and yet you've place the sole blame on the owner for owning such items and being robbed where in most situation the criminal probably had no idea that was the type of loot they'd come in contact with.

I guess if my car is stolen it's my fault cause I wanted to own one for the various reason of owning it. I mean if I didn't have [insert item] in possession it wouldn't have been stolen from me right?

 

[FoolKiller]

Will press on this for clarification - in accordance with your ideology, if a violent crime occurred but didn't involve a gun, would you have the right to own a gun removed?

Each individual case would need to be looked at. Just saying violent crime leaves a whole lot of room for what if, hyperbolic scenarios. I won't give you that rope.