Guns

[Danoff]

Don't you think it's kind of common sense to have a background check done for a private sale? You can assume all you want, but if that person you sold to then uses it in a crime, wouldn't that make you legally liable?

No, you're not legally liable for what someone does with something you sell them. But yes it does make sense to have a license for gun ownership - such that someone without a gun license should not be able to buy one (privately or otherwise). It's not a restriction on the seller so much as it is a restriction on the buyer.

 

[TheGeologist]

For those who don't know me, I have heavy left leaning ideologies. Thus, I've always been in favor of more strict gun control.

My opinion is starting to change. While I would still support stronger gun control, I don't believe it would change anything.

I've began to considered buying a weapon for home protection. I used to think I would never own one.

 

[PocketZeven]

For those who don't know me, I have heavy left leaning ideologies. Thus, I've always been in favor of more strict gun control.

My opinion is starting to change. While I would still support stronger gun control, I don't believe it would change anything.

I've began to considered buying a weapon for home protection. I used to think I would never own one.

It is not just about gun control though. The issue in my view is the overall American gun culture. Stricter gun control, I would agree is not a short term solution, however it potentially can make a difference for future generations.

Another way to take on the gun issue is by approaching gun control like switzerland, which is argueably the country with a gunculture that most resembles the USA. Licensing, better training etc.

 

[Biggles]

Posting in the Canada thread has not elicited much comment & the event itself has been overshadowed by the coronavirus crisis, but the recent shooting spree in Nova Scotia really is a remarkable & horrible addition to the history of senseless shootings that have occurred in the world. There's still a lot that is not known about the events & the motivation for them, but the latest from the CBC is:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...investigation-press-conference-live-1.5542859

 

[Keef]

I have an idea which I believes both satisfies the 2nd Amendment and the obvious need for more thorough gun ownership training and discipline.

A national gun owners training and certification program.

• The act initially removes all federal restrictions on the ownership of infantry-style weapons except explosive ammunition deemed unnecessary for safety or management activities, like flares or wildlife noise makers used at airports.
• The act establishes a thorough training and certification program with certain benefits once completed. The training program is inspired by the two private pilot training standards established by the FAA, "part 61" and "part 141" training. The former "part 61" training would require a minimum of 40 hours of classroom training on defined topics (think history, legal, general gun knowledge, accidents and investigation, critical thinking), and 40 hours of hands-on training on defined topics (think shooting skills, self defense drills, maintenance, safety procedures). There would also be a "part 141" training which would be offered at colleges, lasting one standard semester, and eligible for FAFSA.
• Earning the license would open up several restrictions on the use of weapons. The license would allow use on federal property and would allow transport across state lines. There are probably other benefits or restrictions that I haven't come up with yet.
• The license would be offered free of charge to certain groups and at discounted rates for others. People like teachers, registered nurses, or airplane crewmembers would have special access and therefore be the only people privileged to possess weapons in their workplace, in the name of workplace security. In general, the cost of the training may be tied to ability to pay, and may be subsidized altogether for the least privileged people in society. Everybody deserves knowledge and skills even if they can't afford them.
• Anybody using the license in a commercial setting (teachers, nurses, pilots, etc) would be required to take a short recurrent test annually, and those using the license for private use would have recurrent training every two years (like a biannual flight review).
• Mental health and therapy services would be discounted for license holders, trainees, and registered trainees in case there is a waitlist. We want responsible gun owners to have access to help when they need it because life is difficult and we don't want anybody's mental health to effect their ability to be responsible.
• The license would never expire pending maintenance of privileges through recurrent training.

I'm torn on the concept of mental health evaluations but that really is the core of the problem. I also want to be price conscious because this program should not be limited to only wealthy people as aviation basically is. There are literally millions of underprivileged people in the US who also deserve access to this knowledge and ability to both enjoy life and protect it. And in case you forgot, this is all absolutely in line with the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms", as it removes virtually all barriers to ownership. It merely requires expertise in exchange for usage privileges, just like driving and flying. The focus is on education and making gun owners better, rather than restricting or tracking people. Frankly, anybody who thinks the latter may have difficult passing a mental health exam anyway.

 

[wfooshee]

How is that different from "licensing," which has historically fallen under "infringement?" Yes, localities are free to require licenses or registration for guns, but the Feds are not.

I understand what you're saying, and I have no quarrel with the concept of getting some demonstrated level of skills and responsibility into the process of firearms ownership, but the issue, as with almost any proposal for gun safety, gun control, gun requirements, gun whatever, is that there will always be violators, and those violators, by definition, don't give a rat's ass about what requirements they have to meet to be legit. People wanting to restrict any gun ownership, or place requirements on any gun ownership, seem to be completely ignoring the fact that gun crime comes from... criminals, and not from responsible gun owners. Any requirement to demonstrate or certify your right to purchase or own a gun falls afoul of the Second Amendment.

It also still smacks a bit of, "Yes, you can have guns, as long as we know about them."

 

[Keef]

How is that different from "licensing," which has historically fallen under "infringement?" Yes, localities are free to require licenses or registration for guns, but the Feds are not.

Because the license has nothing to do with ownership. Just as anybody can own an airplane, anybody could own a gun. And all sorts of guns, as restrictions such as automatics and magazines and suppressors are erased. Anybody could keep and bear almost anything.

The license proves worthiness for certain usage, not ownership.

It also still smacks a bit of, "Yes, you can have guns, as long as we know about them."

Airplanes don't have to be registered to be owned and to exist and even "operate" on private property. I think this seems more like, "Yes, you can have guns. But your usage is limited unless you're certified."

 

[wfooshee]

Because the license has nothing to do with ownership. Just as anybody can own an airplane, anybody could own a gun. And all sorts of guns, as restrictions such as automatics and magazines and suppressors are erased. Anybody could keep and bear almost anything.

The license proves worthiness for certain usage, not ownership.

I misunderstood where you were going with this, then. I was tying your program to ownership. So, then, something a little broader than the allowances given by a concealed-carry permit. I know that in Florida, such a permit not only makes it legal for me to be out in public with a hidden firearm, I also don't have the three-day waiting period to purchase one.

 

[Joey D]

I have an idea which I believes both satisfies the 2nd Amendment and the obvious need for more thorough gun ownership training and discipline.

I don't hate it since it seems to adhere to the Second Amendment. Basically, you have the right to own whatever firearm you want, but you don't have the right to use it on public property, but can use it on private property.

I agree there's a need for greater training too. I've had some training but COVID put a wrench in the works so I haven't done any in well over a year now. I'd really like to take a mid-level firearms class again that focuses both on the law and proper technique.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons I don't carry more is that I don't feel like I have the proper training, even though I'm probably better trained than many gun owners who've effectively done jack.

 

[Danoff]

Biden's gun-control measures look pretty tame, they seem to be at least as consistent with the 2nd amendment as existing settled law. Some will say it's not enough to stop gun violence, though we could debate about how much would required to achieve that, this at least looks like an update of existing laws to cover modern techniques.

But if this is what the conservatives have been so worried about... it makes them look even more like loonies. For Biden to come out with something so... boring... is pretty on-brand for him, and makes it tough to create a boogie man, though I have a feeling conservative news outlets will make a run at it.

 

[Joey D]

Are ghost guns really that much of an issue? Or really an issue at all? Having a serial number isn't going to prevent anything either, it's just going to make it potentially easier to find the person who's responsible for the shooting. Also, the brace thing seems kind of weird too, but as long as Biden doesn't go full Trump and make it so there's a grandfather clause, it shouldn't be an issue.

The bigger things are the red flag laws and boyfriend loophole he's hoping to change. Those both have meaningful impacts and could, potentially save lives. The community outreach is something that's certainly needed too, but unless mental healthcare is treated the same way we treat physical illnesses, I'm not sure how much that will do either. But the red flag law and boyfriend loophole seem like common sense measures to help curb gun violence while not violating rights.

Also, I see the NRA is already pooping itself over this. I guess they need to fleece more money out of their supporters so they can write strongly worded Tweets but not really do anything but give money to the executives. Seriously, the NRA is such a sham.

 

[Scaff]

Are ghost guns really that much of an issue? Or really an issue at all? Having a serial number isn't going to prevent anything either, it's just going to make it potentially easier to find the person who's responsible for the shooting. Also, the brace thing seems kind of weird too, but as long as Biden doesn't go full Trump and make it so there's a grandfather clause, it shouldn't be an issue.

The bigger things are the red flag laws and boyfriend loophole he's hoping to change. Those both have meaningful impacts and could, potentially save lives. The community outreach is something that's certainly needed too, but unless mental healthcare is treated the same way we treat physical illnesses, I'm not sure how much that will do either. But the red flag law and boyfriend loophole seem like common sense measures to help curb gun violence while not violating rights.

Also, I see the NRA is already pooping itself over this. I guess they need to fleece more money out of their supporters so they can write strongly worded Tweets but not really do anything but give money to the executives. Seriously, the NRA is such a sham.

Odd one on the brace side of things in comparison to the UK.

Pistols are not legal in the UK unless it’s a muzzle loader but wack a brace, longer barrel and/or moderator on it to get it over 24” in length and it’s then legal.

Standard 911, not legal.

This one

legal.

Oh but that’s semi-auto so it can only be .22lr at most, but a revolver, go nuts that can be any caliber you want.

 

[Danoff]

Are ghost guns really that much of an issue? Or really an issue at all? Having a serial number isn't going to prevent anything either, it's just going to make it potentially easier to find the person who's responsible for the shooting. Also, the brace thing seems kind of weird too, but as long as Biden doesn't go full Trump and make it so there's a grandfather clause, it shouldn't be an issue.

I think the ghost gun issue is forward looking. The idea being that it helps ensure that sales are conducted legally with background checks for registered guns rather than sales being untraceable.

 

[Tornado]

Are braces the same thing as stocks? Because (other than grandfathered in stuff like old Lugers or C96s) I thought those already had to be registered as SBRs.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Are braces the same thing as stocks? Because (other than grandfathered in stuff like old Lugers or C96s) I thought those already had to be registered as SBRs.

ATF ruled that pistol braces =/= SBR. Since they were designed to be a wrist brace and not a shoulder stock. They also ruled that you can shoulder a pistol brace but they weren't intended that way. So they are technically SBRs but were not designed to be. Anything under a 16" barrel with a shoulder stock is an SBR. It's the same reason a Mossberg 590 Shockwave is not a SBS. Although the barrel is a full 4" under minimum legal requirement of 18", it came from the factory without a shoulder stock and meets the minimum requirement of 26" overall length to not be considered an SBS and involve NFA paperwork. If someone put a shoulder stock on a Shockwave, it would be a SBS. If someone put a shoulder stock on a pistol, it would be a SBR.

 

[Dotini]

What is it that makes a loud noise, stinking gunpowder smoke, can break the speed of sound and travel vertically over half a mile?

Answer: A model rocket, available to any child in America for under $20.

 

[UKMikey]

What are the casualty figures on model rockets these days?

 

[Joey D]

What are the casualty figures on model rockets these days?

I got curious so I did a quick Google, there is a staggering amount of research regarding being hurt and/or killed by model rockets, which I find odd. Apparently, nearly all deaths related to model rockets come from people being electrocuted by power lines.

 

[UKMikey]

I got curious so I did a quick Google, there is a staggering amount of research regarding being hurt and/or killed by model rockets, which I find odd. Apparently, nearly all deaths related to model rockets come from people being electrocuted by power lines.

I guess ensuring a safe and successful launch is rocket science after all.

 

[Dotini]

I guess ensuring a safe and successful launch is rocket science after all.

Not only the launch, but also the crucial recovery phase. Most model rocketeers use the parachute supplied in the kit for recovery. Sometimes the rocket goes too high, and drifts too far on its chute, becoming entangled in tree branches and power lines.

Other forms of recovery are available, such as the streamer, tumble, spin, featherweight and horizontal spin. Also, smaller size parachutes are available, and sometimes you need to cut the center out.

 

[Danoff]

Not only the launch, but also the crucial recovery phase. Most model rocketeers use the parachute supplied in the kit recovery. Sometimes the rocket goes too high, and drifts too far on its chute, becoming entangled in tree branches and power lines.

That's the first launch. Second launch you just pull the parachute out and stuff another engine in.

 

[Dotini]

That's the first launch. Second launch you just pull the parachute out and stuff another engine in.

The National Association of Rocketry, other sanctioning bodies, and the industry all have a safety code that requires a recovery system. Folks who get into the hobby seriously all abide by the code.

Below is the fleet I've built this year. Some are kits, some are scratch built.

 

[Danoff]

The National Association of Rocketry, other sanctioning bodies, and the industry all have a safety code that requires a recovery system. Folks who get into the hobby seriously all abide by the code.

Of course they do. For tons of reasons, not the least of which is that they probably have a substantial amount of money and time invested in their rockets and do not want to see them trashed on the ground when they come down.

But...

You imply, heavily, that someone who gets into the hobby seriously does not engage in any less serious activity, and of course you're wrong.

 

[Danoff]

WARNING: John Oliver basically always includes a lot of NSFW language



I know some of you won't get this video in your region, which is a shame because this is a really interesting look at stand your ground laws in some states in the US. I'll summarize. Basically, Oliver states that stand your ground removes your duty to retreat when faced with a life threatening situation in public. You already didn't have a duty to retreat when you're on your property due to "the castle doctrine". If you feel like your life is threatened (and presumably a jury finds that it was reasonable for that to be the case), you don't have to retreat if possible, you can use deadly force. The problem Oliver points out, is that this makes policing homicide much more difficult. It's the old South Park "he's coming right for us!"

At one point, Oliver plays a 911 call from someone witnessing a burglary of his neighbor's property. The 911 operator tells the man to stay inside his home, something absurd, like 14 times. And tells the man that nobody's property is worth someone's life. The man, on the phone with the operator, actually cites stand your ground laws, and says that he's not just going to sit by while his neighbor's property is stolen (despite cops en-route) and goes over and shoots the burglars in the back. The man was not just not convicted of murder, he's paraded in some right wing pow-wow as a hero. This is a rather extreme example of how stand your ground can make policing difficult. The guy basically admitted that he wanted to shoot those people for theft, and then went and did it. He was not under any threat, and actively put himself into a situation where he could claim he was threatened, effectively so that he could exact the death penalty for theft, and it happened, legally. So that's obviously a problem.

Oliver goes on to cite examples of black people being considered more of a threat, simply because of their skin color, and of course a particular demo of jury might find that convincing (and lawyers can change jury demographics by dismissing jurors). So in theory (and there is a reasonably close example in the video), a white person can murder a black person, claim they were threatened, and that might sound convincing to a jury of similarly-minded white people if racism is pervasive enough among the populace.

I think what struck me about this, at least as much as how thorough a job Oliver does of arguing that stand your ground is a bad rule, is that it really highlights the right-wing vigilante justice mentality. The authoritarians in the US really seem to be drawn to a notion not just of self-defense, but of enforcing justice. To them, it seems, it's clear what's right and wrong, and if they have a gun they can exact justice on the world. Rittenhouse comes to mind. As does this. This is what we saw on January 6th (not with guns, but with deadly force), and what we continue to see as the right wing moves further and further from respect for the democratic process and toward authoritarianism. "I know who should be president". "I know what the law should be". "I know who is guilty". "I know sin from virtue". "I'm willing to use force to ensure that my notion is imposed on everyone else".

Edit:

I don't mean this to suggest that it is inherently wrong to defend your rights, or the rights of others. But it's so easy to be wrong, and so easy to make mistakes, that when you can, you need to use the justice system that we have in place to handle the situation. A little humility is needed to recognize that you won't always have all of the facts, and won't always make the right decision in every situation, and that when possible you should not place yourself in a position to need to do it.

The problem Oliver points out is not a problem of principles, in principle, it doesn't matter who protects human rights. The problem Oliver points out is a problem of practicality - especially in light of a big portion of society that is deeply confused about morality. Practically speaking, you need police, you need judges, you need laws, and you need to rely on them. Otherwise you might think the death penalty is appropriate for some petty theft.


Edit 2:

The best counterpoint I could think of off hand was the church shooting in texas, where Santa Clause interrupted a mass shooting with an AR-15. But there is legal breathing room between shooting someone who is repeatedly and clearly attempting murder, and shooting a burglar at your neighbor's property.

 

[UKMikey]

Texas teen kills family, shares photos on social media, kills himself

Eldest daughter says family was set to celebrate mother’s 53rd birthday on Thursday

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Biggles]

I don't mean this to suggest that it is inherently wrong to defend your rights, or the rights of others. But it's so easy to be wrong, and so easy to make mistakes, that when you can, you need to use the justice system that we have in place to handle the situation. A little humility is needed to recognize that you won't always have all of the facts, and won't always make the right decision in every situation, and that when possible you should not place yourself in a position to need to do it.

The problem Oliver points out is not a problem of principles, in principle, it doesn't matter who protects human rights. The problem Oliver points out is a problem of practicality - especially in light of a big portion of society that is deeply confused about morality. Practically speaking, you need police, you need judges, you need laws, and you need to rely on them. Otherwise you might think the death penalty is appropriate for some petty theft.


Edit 2:

The best counterpoint I could think of off hand was the church shooting in texas, where Santa Clause interrupted a mass shooting with an AR-15. But there is legal breathing room between shooting someone who is repeatedly and clearly attempting murder, and shooting a burglar at your neighbor's property.

... and then there's this, which I just read about this morning.

Police killing of Colorado 'hero' illustrates issues cops face in regulating concealed guns | CNN

The police killing of a Colorado man praised as a hero for preventing a mass shooting earlier this year illustrates how laws that allow the concealed or open carry of guns in public complicate police response to shootings.

www.cnn.com

 

[Joey D]

... and then there's this, which I just read about this morning.

Police killing of Colorado 'hero' illustrates issues cops face in regulating concealed guns | CNN

The police killing of a Colorado man praised as a hero for preventing a mass shooting earlier this year illustrates how laws that allow the concealed or open carry of guns in public complicate police response to shootings.

www.cnn.com

Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, it looks like John Hurley confronted Ronald Troyke after Troyke killed a police officer and Hurley wasn't actively being threatened? If that's the case it shows why the general public should not play vigilante. You should be able to legally carry a gun in public, but you should also understand how and when to use it. Thinking you're some kind of hero for stopping crime isn't the correct way to use a gun since a gun should only be used for defense, not offense.

Also, I think this also shows how police often default to using a gun while shooting first then asking questions. If Hurley was knowledgeable about carrying a gun, in theory, he should know that you comply with an officer's request to drop your weapon as soon as they give the command. You learn this in a concealed weapons course. So either the officer didn't issue the command and just started shooting, or Hurley didn't comply. Both are major issues and why people who carry guns should absolutely keep up on training with them since an untrained person carrying a gun is a huge liability.

 

[Biggles]

As I understand it, Hurley wasn't himself under threat by the shooter. Very cruel to accuse Hurley of thinking he's "some kind of hero". - rather he sought out an active shooter to protect the people in the area. Pretty much the definition of a "good guy with a gun". There's no indication that the responding police officer ordered Hurley to drop his gun & the gun he had picked up. It's quite possible that the responding officer simply fired at what appeared to be the active shooter. It doesn't appear that Hurley was an untrained gun owner, just that he responded intuitively to an evolving situation. Presumably, the officer was trained ... but he just went ahead & shot Hurley without understanding the situation.

It's just another example of many, of a situation where the presence of guns brings unfortunate, unanticipated & deadly sequences.

 

[Danoff]

As I understand it, Hurley wasn't himself under threat by the shooter. Very cruel to accuse Hurley of thinking he's "some kind of hero". - rather he sought out an active shooter to protect the people in the area. Pretty much the definition of a "good guy with a gun". There's no indication that the responding police officer ordered Hurley to drop his gun & the gun he had picked up. It's quite possible that the responding officer simply fired at what appeared to be the active shooter. It doesn't appear that Hurley was an untrained gun owner, just that he responded intuitively to an evolving situation. Presumably, the officer was trained ... but he just went ahead & shot Hurley without understanding the situation.

It's just another example of many, of a situation where the presence of guns brings unfortunate, unanticipated & deadly sequences.

Friendly fire is a real concern. Not just between do-gooders and cops, but between cops, and between do-gooders (as aaarguably happened in the Rittenhouse case, if Rittenhouse can be considered a do-gooder), and between cops and victims. How many situations have we seen police shoot homeowners or people in public for holding something like a nintendo controller? Guns don't even need to be present.

It was explained to me by an officer during an active shooter training at my workplace (a few years back), that they had been taught to look at cell phones as potential guns. So when you leave an active shooter situation you're supposed to have your hands up in a surrender pose, but not be holding a cell phone, which might be considered a firearm.

To a lesser extent, every weapon poses this problem. Including hands. The fear of a particular weapon justifies a lot of actions in people's minds. Just look at those who mentioned Rosenbaum having a chain (despite Rittenhouse having a semi-automatic rifle), as being a reason to suspect that he was out to harm others.

You quoted me saying that people should, if possible, leave it to the cops to handle these situations, and I think that should be the message to the public. Instead it seems like recently the US has been given a dose of the opposite - grab your gun and go enforce your own brand of justice... the result will be more deaths, either intentional or unintentional.

 

[Biggles]

It was explained to me by an officer during an active shooter training at my workplace (a few years back), that they had been taught to look at cell phones as potential guns. So when you leave an active shooter situation you're supposed to have your hands up in a surrender pose, but not be holding a cell phone, which might be considered a firearm.

To a lesser extent, every weapon poses this problem. Including hands. The fear of a particular weapon justifies a lot of actions in people's minds. Just look at those who mentioned Rosenbaum having a chain (despite Rittenhouse having a semi-automatic rifle), as being a reason to suspect that he was out to harm others.

The problem of the presence of guns isn't restricted to the actual presence of guns. There are endless examples of the police shooting people because there is fear in their minds about the possible presence of guns ... even when there isn't any real evidence that a gun is present. This example comes to mind, but there are many, many examples:



This kind of event would be unthinkable in most countries, where the police wouldn't automatically assume a gun might be present ... because it's extremely unlikely that a gun would be present.