Guns

[Danoff]

This one is a bit near and dear to me given that I am generally in favor of capital punishment but entirely because it generates plea bargains - to the point where I think an offer of a plea bargain could even be mandatory in those cases. I would not be in favor of trotting out the death penalty in a case where it didn't apply for this purpose, and I generally agree that such a thing can be immoral. For example, charging Alec Baldwin with a capital offense in this case for the purpose of generating a plea bargain would have been an even more gross overstep. But for cases like James Holmes here in Colorado, I think it would have made perfect sense.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah I will never have anything to do with owning a gun.

I can think of lot of reasons why one might might say this, but I'm wondering what yours are.

He can't make me go with them with a gun in the vehicle because as much as it's their supposed right to have one it's also my right to not be around one.

There are ways to avoid being around a gun, at least to a certain extent. But it's not easy to make sure that you aren't. It is your right to leave in that situation, but it's obviously not your right to insist that the people around you be disarmed in all circumstances, at least not in the US. For example, if you're driving on a public road, you might be next to the car you refused to ride in. In which case, at least for a moment, you are around a gun.

I think your intent was to say that it's your right not to get in the car. And certainly that's the case. But what you said can also be interpreted to mean that it's your right to insist that the people around you do not carry.

 

[Jezza819]

I can think of lot of reasons why one might might say this, but I'm wondering what yours are.



There are ways to avoid being around a gun, at least to a certain extent. But it's not easy to make sure that you aren't. It is your right to leave in that situation, but it's obviously not your right to insist that the people around you be disarmed in all circumstances, at least not in the US. For example, if you're driving on a public road, you might be next to the car you refused to ride in. In which case, at least for a moment, you are around a gun.

I think your intent was to say that it's your right not to get in the car. And certainly that's the case. But what you said can also be interpreted to mean that it's your right to insist that the people around you do not carry.

I don't feel there is a need to defend myself. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen. I'm not going to live my life in fear sitting in my place pointing a gun at the front door anticipating something is going to happen. Or there's danger lurking around every place I go. I do not want to possibly kill anyone.

If I'm in my vehicle and the car in the next lane has a gun, you're right I don't know that and I think it's better that I don't know that. But at least I'm in my own enclosed personal space and responsible for my own actions as opposed to being in an enclosed space with other people where I'm dependent on them to not get us in trouble by potentially trying to be Wyatt Earp because someone has cut us off in traffic.

No I can't insist that people do not carry and I wasn't implying that.

Now I'll ask you a question. Do you feel that everyone should be armed? And if so why?

 

[Barra333]

Without casting on anyone in this thread, I think a pretty accurate assessment would come down to:

America - "why shouldn't I be armed?"
Everywhere else - "why should I be armed?"

 

[R3V]

Now I'll ask you a question. Do you feel that everyone should be armed? And if so why?

I know this question isn't for me but I'm waiting for food and bored so I'll answer.


Not everyone on the street should be armed, but every citizen of every country should be armed. If not, you'll eventually end up with a two tier class system. Without free speech, gun ownership and privacy, you cannot have/sustain a free society. Hold on to your 1st, 2nd, and 4th-8th amendments (or whatever's left of them) while you still can.

 

[MIE1992]

As someone who never wants to own a gun themselves, I think strict gun control might not necessarily be getting to the root of the issue. I think the deeper issue is psychological and/or sociological in nature. For example, alienation. We gotta figure out what's been making people so angry, even before Covid.

And I think that trying to make the AR-15 the official national gun is so stupid. It clearly should either be the Colt M1911 or the Colt Single Action Army. I see both of these arms as representing conquest and the broad reach of the USA, but the former also has a more "formal" aura to it, as it's been used a lot by military officers. Even if the country had a national rifle, I'd make it the M16, seeing how it's popular all over the world.

 

[Joey D]

Without casting on anyone in this thread, I think a pretty accurate assessment would come down to:

America - "why shouldn't I be armed?"
Everywhere else - "why should I be armed?"

And really, the answer comes down to, access to firearms is legal and, in some cases, a Constitutional protected right in America. It's not elsewhere.

 

[MIE1992]

And really, the answer comes down to, access to firearms is legal and, in some cases, a Constitutional protected right in America. It's not elsewhere.

I heard the Swiss have quite a few arms per capita. But I never really looked into why...

 

[Danoff]

I don't feel there is a need to defend myself.

I'm sure there are other weapons you'd use to defend yourself if you were in that situation.

Now I'll ask you a question. Do you feel that everyone should be armed? And if so why?

No. Definitely not everyone should be armed (and I take that more broadly than carrying). And I don't just mean convicted criminals, the mentally unstable, children, or people with otherwise impaired judgement. I don't think anyone should own a gun who is not comfortable using it. The reason is that every gun represents some level of misuse, either by the owner or others. So if someone is not comfortable using a gun, it is better for them to not have one.

I also think some people own guns, legally, and do not have the necessary judgment to be proper gun owners - even despite mental stability and a lack of criminal conviction. Gun accidents often involve people just not exercising good judgment.

 

[Joey D]

I heard the Swiss have quite a few arms per capita. But I never really looked into why...

Switzerland has mandatory military service for all abled-bodied males. Once your service is over, you're kept in reserve until sometime in your 30s and you're required to keep your service weapon. So knowing how to shoot and being required to own a gun for a part of your life has led some people to want to continue using them. They also incorporate shooting into their leisure activities such as skeet, target, and hunting.

 

[Jezza819]

I'm sure there are other weapons you'd use to defend yourself if you were in that situation.



No. Definitely not everyone should be armed (and I take that more broadly than carrying). And I don't just mean convicted criminals, the mentally unstable, children, or people with otherwise impaired judgement. I don't think anyone should own a gun who is not comfortable using it. The reason is that every gun represents some level of misuse, either by the owner or others. So if someone is not comfortable using a gun, it is better for them to not have one.

I also think some people own guns, legally, and do not have the necessary judgment to be proper gun owners - even despite mental stability and a lack of criminal conviction. Gun accidents often involve people just not exercising good judgment.

I would say not comfortable with it being in the same residence would apply more to me. Hard to get comfortable using something you don't choose to own.

 

[Danoff]

I would say not comfortable with it being in the same residence would apply more to me. Hard to get comfortable using something you don't choose to own.

It's a bit strange that this lack of comfort with being around guns keeps getting related to the guns rather than the people. It's the people you have to decide whether you trust being around, and that's true whether guns are present or not.

 

[FPV MIC]

It's a bit strange that this lack of comfort with being around guns keeps getting related to the guns rather than the people. It's the people you have to decide whether you trust being around, and that's true whether guns are present or not.

While that's true to a certain extent there's people I don't particularly trust that I'm very comfortable to be in the same room as in a situation where there's no guns, but those same people where a gun is present... .

 

[Danoff]

While that's true to a certain extent there's people I don't particularly trust that I'm very comfortable to be in the same room as in a situation where there's no guns, but those same people where a gun is present... .

How do you know whether a gun is present?

I'm trying to think of a circumstance that I've been in so that I can relate to this sentiment. The closest I can come is when thinking about being pulled over or visited by the police. I'd be more comfortable if a gun were not present.

 

[FPV MIC]

How do you know whether a gun is present?

I'm trying to think of a circumstance that I've been in so that I can relate to this sentiment. The closest I can come is when thinking about being pulled over or visited by the police. I'd be more comfortable if a gun were not present.

In some circumstances I wouldn't know, but I also would be less likely to put myself in that position. Would I go to their house where there's a very high probability of gun presence? No way!

We don't have anywhere near the amount of hand guns here so the likelihood is much lower that someone is carrying one. It makes it a lot easier for us (Aussies) to know our circumstances.

 

[Danoff]

In some circumstances I wouldn't know, but I also would be less likely to put myself in that position.

Since you wouldn't know, you kinda have to rely on assessing the people rather than the gun right? That was my point.

I do understand the sentiment of a presence of a gun making you nervous in a situation where you otherwise might not be - because I can see that with police presence. But that's mostly because if a police officer shoots you in the US they likely won't even be prosecuted. So they have a latitude that they just shouldn't have.

 

[FPV MIC]

Since you wouldn't know, you kinda have to rely on assessing the people rather than the gun right? That was my point.

That's why I agreed it was true to a certain extent. But as I mentioned, it's pretty easy here to not be in that situation as the likelihood someone you don't trust is carrying is so low... just don't go to their house (I learnt this from personal experience).

I do understand the sentiment of a presence of a gun making you nervous in a situation where you otherwise might not be - because I can see that with police presence.

As mentioned above, I learnt through personal experience to not knowingly put myself in a situation where a gun could be present. No-one was injured at all but it was a very, very uncomfortable situation for all concerned. That untrustworthy person is not an issue in any other circumstances.

But that's mostly because if a police officer shoots you in the US they likely won't even be prosecuted. So they have a latitude that they just shouldn't have.

Yeah, that's really unfortunate. The chances of having a gun pulled on you by the police were I live is almost nil, let alone being shot by one.

 

[Danoff]

That untrustworthy person is not an issue in any other circumstances.

Suppose you knew this person did not have a gun. Do you now consider it safe to visit their house?

 

[FPV MIC]

Suppose you knew this person did not have a gun. Do you now consider it safe to visit their house?

Yes.

 

[Northstar]

Yes.

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?

 

[Danoff]

Yes.

This is hard for me to understand. Perhaps you're willing to share some more information. I have a decent imagination, but it's not quite painting this picture.

 

[FPV MIC]

This is hard for me to understand. Perhaps you're willing to share some more information. I have a decent imagination, but it's not quite painting this picture.

It related to retrieving some stolen goods when the police failed to act, and it was one of those 'he's more scared of me than I am of him' circumstances. The gun was what the person felt was necessary to tilt things more favourably to his advantage, and he was correct (I'm not faster than a speeding bullet ), but I did still get the property back.

I'd imagine it's sort of the opposite of your police example. Would it be fair to say, no police gun presence = no, or at least less nervousness because the fear of being shot is gone? While our police do carry guns here, nervousness because they're carrying a gun is something we don't have to deal with, and I've seen news reports of how heavy handed your police can be sometimes so I'm not sure.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well this is unexpected:

Biden to close ‘gun-show loophole’ and expand background checks for firearms

Somehow I assumed this required an act of congress rather than a policy change at the ATF. I expect to hear winging about how onerous this will be blah blah. The fact is that there are TONS of people out there that are firearms dealers in practice without any kind of license. A friend of mine used to do almost exactly this - looked for deals on guns online, and bought them explicitly to sell them. He was doing so much volume that the ATF actually came to his house and gave him a cease and desist.

 

[Aaronhuang]

Well this is unexpected:

Biden to close ‘gun-show loophole’ and expand background checks for firearms

Somehow I assumed this required an act of congress rather than a policy change at the ATF. I expect to hear winging about how onerous this will be blah blah. The fact is that there are TONS of people out there that are firearms dealers in practice without any kind of license. A friend of mine used to do almost exactly this - looked for deals on guns online, and bought them explicitly to sell them. He was doing so much volume that the ATF actually came to his house and gave him a cease and desist.

‘Gun show loophole’ about to close as Biden restricts gun purchase conditions

The changes to the law are set to go into effect on May 20.

www.newsnationnow.com

Four weeks later and people are already complaining. There apparently are some states who believe that this law is violating the second amendment, which I disagree with. As someone who has lived in a household with firearms, I believe enforcing background checks doesn't infringe on your ability to obtain a firearm rather making it harder for low-level criminals to access firearms they otherwise shouldn't be able to have as easy access to. The fact that (I'm assuming) most of the people protesting against this law are legal gun owners makes this even more unheard of. It's absurd how far people only seeing in black-and-white will go.

 

[wfooshee]

There is a paranoia of it being "the first step" towards no guns at all, or no handguns, or no ammunition, or no something else. The next restriction won't be so hard to swallow, nor the one after that. I don't buy into that, and I fully agree that some control needs to be in place to ensure that gun ownership is legitimate, through background check at a minimum, but I don't buy into the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" philosophy. That's always the basis of the don't-change-this!!! argument, though... What's the next thing they'll want?

 

[Aaronhuang]

There is a paranoia of it being "the first step" towards no guns at all, or no handguns, or no ammunition, or no something else. The next restriction won't be so hard to swallow, nor the one after that. I don't buy into that, and I fully agree that some control needs to be in place to ensure that gun ownership is legitimate, through background check at a minimum, but I don't buy into the "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" philosophy. That's always the basis of the don't-change-this!!! argument, though... What's the next thing they'll want?

Agreed. I fully support the right for law abiding and responsible citizens owning firearm however there have to be measures in place to make it tough for those who shouldn't have guns to get guns. I can see how some people can take the slippery-slope approach to these types of issues, but that thought process doesn't work for all situations. The main point is it's not really gun-restriction, moreover it's improving on the security of the everyday citizens.

 

[R3V]

making it harder for low-level criminals to access firearms

What percentage of homicides were done with privately sold firearms?

 

[Aaronhuang]

There are many outlets online that will tell you the "percentage" in their own terms. It differs per state because each state has their own gun regulations making something illegal in one state illegal in another. The point is that background checks don't have any immediate downsides, except that it can cost a few bucks. Don't get my words twisted, I'm not anti-gun ownership, I'm simply stating that an extra layer of security won't hurt.

Below is a link to the website I used. There are a lot of websites saying different things due to well... politics. I advise you to check out at least a few sources before coming to a conclusion.

"About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence." (link)

 

[R3V]

"About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence." (link)

Selling your gun to a known felon is already illegal. If they weren't felons at the time, what difference would a background check make?

 

[FPV MIC]

Selling your gun to a known felon is already illegal.

How would you know they're a known felon without a background check. It's not like they're going to tell you and it's not like everyone knows every single known felon.

If they weren't felons at the time, what difference would a background check make?

There's a myriad of other things that can be picked up by a background check.

An example of what we have in Australia (NSW precisely): Source

Examples of characteristics for a consumer at heightened risk of self-harm, or violence towards others include:

• previous history of self-harm, suicide attempts or violence towards others
• current suicidal ideation
• evidence of substance intoxication / use
• known to NSW Police and/or other service groups in relation to impulsive or aggressive acts or behaviour
• expressed or implied threats towards self or others
• command hallucinations
• delusions / hallucinations – focused on a person
• delusions of control with a violent theme
• antisocial, explosive, or impulsive traits
• outstanding current legal matters arising from assault, or attempted assault, towards objects or people e.g. Apprehended Violence Orders, Personal Violence Orders, domestic violence charges etc.

There will always by instances of people slipping through the system due to not being classified yet but it doesn't hurt to weed out some of the more obvious cases of people who shouldn't own a gun.