Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345571 times)

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1250 on: June 13, 2016, 09:10:36 PM »
That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
If not hate speech, what influences would've driven the motivation for someone to shoot up a gay bar?


Maybe he hated himself.  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/report-orlando-nightclub-shooter-visited-222620444.html

If this is true, it just gets weirder and weirder.

Not the first gay man to live a double life but damn this is extreme.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1251 on: June 13, 2016, 09:17:37 PM »


There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

No competent and reasonable gun owner will carry a gun when they're going out to a bar to drink.

Why?  Are there no designated drivers at a place like this?  I drink free soft drinks every time I enter a bar.
See bolded. There may have been a few DD's...who knows -- but with Uber/Lyft being so prevalent these days I would not be surprised if they were an incredibly small population.

I go to bars to drink too.  Free soft drinks.  The point was that there is a legitimate reason that someone would be at a bar, not drinking alcohol.  Should that person, if they have a concealed carry license, not be permitted to carry?  What about the bartender(s) and other employees?  Why was the only armed person in a huge bar the off-duty cop, which would have been easy to identify for Joe Average inside of a gay bar, much less a well trained security professional intent on mass murder?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1252 on: June 13, 2016, 09:58:49 PM »


There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

No competent and reasonable gun owner will carry a gun when they're going out to a bar to drink.

Why?  Are there no designated drivers at a place like this?  I drink free soft drinks every time I enter a bar.
See bolded. There may have been a few DD's...who knows -- but with Uber/Lyft being so prevalent these days I would not be surprised if they were an incredibly small population.

I go to bars to drink too.  Free soft drinks.  The point was that there is a legitimate reason that someone would be at a bar, not drinking alcohol.  Should that person, if they have a concealed carry license, not be permitted to carry?  What about the bartender(s) and other employees?  Why was the only armed person in a huge bar the off-duty cop, which would have been easy to identify for Joe Average inside of a gay bar, much less a well trained security professional intent on mass murder?

I get the impression that you think I am arguing with you, and I am not.  I'm clarifying that most people go to bars to drink. For the sake of clarification (and to avoid further smartass responses), the colloquial "drink" in a bar context means "to consume alcohol." I'm not going to bother addressing your massive list of accusatory questions, because absolutely none of them are relevant to what I said.

Side note - after I left law enforcement in 2011, I was a supervisor for G4S (the security company who employed the shooter).  Calling their employees "well trained" is a huge leap. Many people worked there because they couldn't get hired at a police department (probably much like this guy, who went through the Florida police academy and ended up working security).

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1253 on: June 14, 2016, 12:17:37 AM »
Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.
[/quote]



I agree that owning or having easy access to a firearm makes it more expedient to do destructive acts compared to say building a bomb. However the approx. 300 million legally owned firearms in the US are rarely involved in crimes or mass shootings. This shows that most gun owners are responsible regardless of how speedy or available a firearm is.

So should we limit or ban a right from an entire nation of responsible owners because a few have caused loss of lives? Would you limit or ban free speech to an entire nation of people because a few may spew hate speech causing a riot which causes loss of lives?
Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1254 on: June 14, 2016, 12:18:05 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1255 on: June 14, 2016, 12:59:09 AM »
Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.




I agree that owning or having easy access to a firearm makes it more expedient to do destructive acts compared to say building a bomb. However the approx. 300 million legally owned firearms in the US are rarely involved in crimes or mass shootings. This shows that most gun owners are responsible regardless of how speedy or available a firearm is.

So should we limit or ban a right from an entire nation of responsible owners because a few have caused loss of lives? Would you limit or ban free speech to an entire nation of people because a few may spew hate speech causing a riot which causes loss of lives?
[/quote]

I still don't think the hate speech argument is relevant. The right to private firearm ownership is way more specific than freedom of speech and more directly responsible for violence.

Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1256 on: June 14, 2016, 01:10:20 AM »
I still don't think the hate speech argument is relevant. The right to private firearm ownership is way more specific than freedom of speech and more directly responsible for violence.

I'm not sure that assertion is backed up by statistical analysis...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1257 on: June 14, 2016, 01:24:50 AM »
Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.
Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.




I agree that owning or having easy access to a firearm makes it more expedient to do destructive acts compared to say building a bomb. However the approx. 300 million legally owned firearms in the US are rarely involved in crimes or mass shootings. This shows that most gun owners are responsible regardless of how speedy or available a firearm is.

So should we limit or ban a right from an entire nation of responsible owners because a few have caused loss of lives? Would you limit or ban free speech to an entire nation of people because a few may spew hate speech causing a riot which causes loss of lives?

I still don't think the hate speech argument is relevant. The right to private firearm ownership is way more specific than freedom of speech and more directly responsible for violence.
[/quote]

That's cool - we can agree to disagree. My feeling is that in either case banning or limiting a constitutional right out of the fear of the possibility of rare occurance by one person penalizes the millions of people who have done nothing wrong, acted responsibily, and behaved correctly while providing zero additional protection against people who want to do great harm.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 01:27:15 AM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1258 on: June 14, 2016, 02:21:52 AM »
I still don't think the hate speech argument is relevant. The right to private firearm ownership is way more specific than freedom of speech and more directly responsible for violence.

I'm not sure that assertion is backed up by statistical analysis...

Freedom of speech is clearly implicated in ~20,000 homicides a year?
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

ahoy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1259 on: June 14, 2016, 05:50:09 AM »
I hesitate to comment on this kind of thread.  372 mass (4 or more injured or killed) shootings in the US for 2015.  More mass shootings than days in the yr!.  Can't forget about the more than 26,000 injured and 13,000 other victims shot dead each yr.   Where is their right to live?  It's unbelievable sad.

I know I know,  someone will now tell me about car deaths and why not ban them.  But seriously, other countries just shake their heads and can't understand the US gun culture.  Some tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer.... 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1260 on: June 14, 2016, 05:58:31 AM »
I hesitate to comment on this kind of thread.  372 mass (4 or more injured or killed) shootings in the US for 2015.  More mass shootings than days in the yr!.  Can't forget about the more than 26,000 injured and 13,000 other victims shot dead each yr.   Where is their right to live?  It's unbelievable sad.

I know I know,  someone will now tell me about car deaths and why not ban them.  But seriously, other countries just shake their heads and can't understand the US gun culture.  Some tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer....

Are people serious when they say stuff like this, or is it just an expression? Because I hear it a lot.

All people, including murder victims, have the right to live. Others do not have the right to murder them. However, people do not have the right to be kept alive by whatever means necessary for whatever cost necessary.

If we took Trump's lead and banned all Muslims from America, I think it would probably save many American lives over the course of the next decade due to a lack of Islamic terror attacks. But most people disagree with this tactic because it would violate the rights of millions of people.

If we locked up all depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc people for life, it would save many lives lost due to murder and suicide. But we wouldn't do that because it would violate the rights of millions.

A person's right to live doesn't trump everything else under the sun.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1261 on: June 14, 2016, 06:44:53 AM »
I hesitate to comment on this kind of thread.  372 mass (4 or more injured or killed) shootings in the US for 2015.  More mass shootings than days in the yr!.  Can't forget about the more than 26,000 injured and 13,000 other victims shot dead each yr.   Where is their right to live?  It's unbelievable sad.

I know I know,  someone will now tell me about car deaths and why not ban them.  But seriously, other countries just shake their heads and can't understand the US gun culture.  Some tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer....

Are people serious when they say stuff like this, or is it just an expression? Because I hear it a lot.

All people, including murder victims, have the right to live. Others do not have the right to murder them. However, people do not have the right to be kept alive by whatever means necessary for whatever cost necessary.

If we took Trump's lead and banned all Muslims from America, I think it would probably save many American lives over the course of the next decade due to a lack of Islamic terror attacks. But most people disagree with this tactic because it would violate the rights of millions of people.

If we locked up all depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc people for life, it would save many lives lost due to murder and suicide. But we wouldn't do that because it would violate the rights of millions.

A person's right to live doesn't trump everything else under the sun.

Just to be clear . . . you equate the loss of being able to legally buy a semi-automatic with high capacity magazines and no background check or record that you have the gun . . . to being locked up in a mental institution, or government sanctioned religious discrimination?

See, this is why it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion.  That's a patently unreasonable position that you're starting from.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1262 on: June 14, 2016, 06:59:26 AM »
ome tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer....

Are you joking about Mexico or just horribly misinformed?  The murder rate in Mexico is very high despite their gun laws.

Canada is at 1.4 per 100k, US is at 3.8, and there's Mexico at 15.7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1263 on: June 14, 2016, 07:02:46 AM »
That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
You may be right that there would be fewer shootings and less gun violence if the population were disarmed, but there is no evidence that there would be fewer murders and less violence overall. I personally do not believe that there would be any increase in safety within the United States by repealing or abriding the 2nd amendment in any way that is not already currently considered constitutional based on Supreme Court case law. My personal interpretation of the words "The right to keep or bear arms shall not be infringed" would further restrict the constitutionallity of many current gun and weapon laws (I may agree with a few current laws that I consider "infinging" on the right to keep or bear arms).
And that is because the NRA convinced Congress to stop funding the research.  I wonder why?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1264 on: June 14, 2016, 07:06:30 AM »
I hesitate to comment on this kind of thread.  372 mass (4 or more injured or killed) shootings in the US for 2015.  More mass shootings than days in the yr!.  Can't forget about the more than 26,000 injured and 13,000 other victims shot dead each yr.   Where is their right to live?  It's unbelievable sad.

I know I know,  someone will now tell me about car deaths and why not ban them.  But seriously, other countries just shake their heads and can't understand the US gun culture.  Some tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer....

Are people serious when they say stuff like this, or is it just an expression? Because I hear it a lot.

All people, including murder victims, have the right to live. Others do not have the right to murder them. However, people do not have the right to be kept alive by whatever means necessary for whatever cost necessary.

If we took Trump's lead and banned all Muslims from America, I think it would probably save many American lives over the course of the next decade due to a lack of Islamic terror attacks. But most people disagree with this tactic because it would violate the rights of millions of people.

If we locked up all depressed, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc people for life, it would save many lives lost due to murder and suicide. But we wouldn't do that because it would violate the rights of millions.

A person's right to live doesn't trump everything else under the sun.

Just to be clear . . . you equate the loss of being able to legally buy a semi-automatic with high capacity magazines and no background check or record that you have the gun . . . to being locked up in a mental institution, or government sanctioned religious discrimination?

See, this is why it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion.  That's a patently unreasonable position that you're starting from.

Equal to? Perhaps not. But certainly similar. Locking up someone for having depression would be a HUGE violation of their rights. Locking up someone for owing a gun you dislike is a slightly less huge violation, but they are comparable.

And no, I am not the reason we can't have a reasonable discussion. You have led me to believe that you (and many others, in my experience) believe that the only rights anyone has are the rights that politicians currently say they do. So your side absolutely cannot be trusted. At all.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1265 on: June 14, 2016, 07:07:12 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3696
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1266 on: June 14, 2016, 07:11:03 AM »
I hesitate to comment on this kind of thread.  372 mass (4 or more injured or killed) shootings in the US for 2015.  More mass shootings than days in the yr!.  Can't forget about the more than 26,000 injured and 13,000 other victims shot dead each yr.   Where is their right to live?  It's unbelievable sad.

I know I know,  someone will now tell me about car deaths and why not ban them.  But seriously, other countries just shake their heads and can't understand the US gun culture.  Some tourists ARE afraid of stepping inside America in fear that they will be shot  Mexico is surely safer....

Mexico had a murder rate that was 3x the USA's in 2011. According to wikipedia that rate is currently 5x the United States rate, per capita. A surprisingly large number of American tourists were killed there and the USA has a travel advisory warning Americans planning on going there.


Just to be clear . . . you equate the loss of being able to legally buy a semi-automatic with high capacity magazines and no background check or record that you have the gun . . . to being locked up in a mental institution, or government sanctioned religious discrimination?

See, this is why it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion.  That's a patently unreasonable position that you're starting from.

It's more unreasonable to assume you can increase security without decreasing liberty. There is a tradeoff. Some people find it far easier to sacrifice one or the other, but there is a tradeoff. The reason discussions like this are hard is that people do not discuss this aspect - winkeyman clearly is less willing to sacrifice security for the sake of increased liberty. You appear to be the opposite.

But rather than discuss this, please continue to argue over and over again about how dumb/blind/shortsighted the other side is while making ad hominem and strawman arguments in an attempt to dismiss their perspective while simultaneously asserting your intellectual and moral superiority.


ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3696
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1267 on: June 14, 2016, 07:17:57 AM »
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

The problem is enforcement.

I have the same problem with people who are clearly drunks (multiple DUIs, accidents, revoked license) who then kill someone while driving drunk, in spite of a million reasons they shouldn't be. It happens somewhat often and I don't know what to do about it, but it infuriates me to no end that it is so trivially easy for someone in that situation to still drive and endanger others.

I think that for guns, it would be easier to accomplish. Make it incredibly illegal and painful to anyone who sells a gun to someone who is not supposed to have one. Make it so that anyone selling a gun who does not do any due diligence goes to jail. And make that due diligence easier on sellers so that it's not a logistical nightmare to try to do.

It won't stop everything, but it will at the very least make people more aware of how important it is to be aware of who they are selling to. Right now, it's a bit of "don't ask don't tell" for things.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1268 on: June 14, 2016, 07:20:36 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

I thought those convicted of domestic abuse were already prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1269 on: June 14, 2016, 07:32:59 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

I thought those convicted of domestic abuse were already prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

Nobody's prevented from buying a firearm through a private sale.  No background check, no asking for ID, no records.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1270 on: June 14, 2016, 07:36:44 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

I thought those convicted of domestic abuse were already prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

Nobody's prevented from buying a firearm through a private sale.  No background check, no asking for ID, no records.

The prohibited person who bought the gun in a private sale, however, has still committed a crime by buying and possessing the gun. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1271 on: June 14, 2016, 07:42:33 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

I thought those convicted of domestic abuse were already prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.

Nobody's prevented from buying a firearm through a private sale.  No background check, no asking for ID, no records.

The prohibited person who bought the gun in a private sale, however, has still committed a crime by buying and possessing the gun.

As long as your goal is to have more people breaking the law in ways that the police have no hope of catching (rather than keeping guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them) then I guess it all works out.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1272 on: June 14, 2016, 07:56:35 AM »

Nobody's prevented from buying a firearm through a private sale.  No background check, no asking for ID, no records.

The prohibited person who bought the gun in a private sale, however, has still committed a crime by buying and possessing the gun.

As long as your goal is to have more people breaking the law in ways that the police have no hope of catching (rather than keeping guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them) then I guess it all works out.

We had a poster above claim that people convicted of domestic violence could legally possess guns.  That is false.  It is illegal under current law.

If I understand correctly, you're argument is that because they didn't obey the first law, we should create a 2nd law for them to follow?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Location: Denver
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1273 on: June 14, 2016, 09:45:26 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1274 on: June 14, 2016, 09:53:10 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.

I don't know the laws specifically, but I do know that when I was in the military 10 years ago, everyone had to certify via written statement before the annual weapons qualifying range shoots that they were not convicted or charged with DV, because if they were, just handing them a weapon was a crime for the person doing the handing. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1275 on: June 14, 2016, 09:53:50 AM »

Nobody's prevented from buying a firearm through a private sale.  No background check, no asking for ID, no records.

The prohibited person who bought the gun in a private sale, however, has still committed a crime by buying and possessing the gun.

As long as your goal is to have more people breaking the law in ways that the police have no hope of catching (rather than keeping guns out of the hands of people who would be dangerous with them) then I guess it all works out.

We had a poster above claim that people convicted of domestic violence could legally possess guns.  That is false.  It is illegal under current law.

If I understand correctly, you're argument is that because they didn't obey the first law, we should create a 2nd law for them to follow?

No.

Right now people who aren't supposed to own guns are expected to follow the honour system when buying through private sale.

It would be better if every sale of a gun had to get ID, a background check, and was recorded.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1276 on: June 14, 2016, 09:58:05 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.

Laws vary by state; some require that firearms be turned over if a restraining order is in place. I'm not sure about laws regarding a pending charge, but as that often comes with a restraining order I wouldn't be surprised.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1277 on: June 14, 2016, 10:00:55 AM »

Freedom of speech is clearly implicated in ~20,000 homicides a year?


Hate speech is one of the reasons ISIS and the Taliban are doing so well.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1278 on: June 14, 2016, 10:02:04 AM »

Right now people who aren't supposed to own guns are expected to follow the honour system when buying through private sale.

It would be better if every sale of a gun had to get ID, a background check, and was recorded.

I'm an NRA member who agrees with this, at least conceptually.  The trouble comes when people start arguing over what information on the background check makes it ok or not ok to own a gun. 

And even if you do enact legislation like that, you STILL will have the problem of both buyer & seller not respecting the law, so you don't have perfect elimination of the honor system concept.


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1279 on: June 14, 2016, 10:05:54 AM »

Right now people who aren't supposed to own guns are expected to follow the honour system when buying through private sale.

It would be better if every sale of a gun had to get ID, a background check, and was recorded.

I'm an NRA member who agrees with this, at least conceptually.  The trouble comes when people start arguing over what information on the background check makes it ok or not ok to own a gun. 

And even if you do enact legislation like that, you STILL will have the problem of both buyer & seller not respecting the law, so you don't have perfect elimination of the honor system concept.

When you add a second person into the mix, it's not perfect . . . but it's a much better way of going about things.  If there's a list of guns/gun owners, then the person who sells the gun knows he can be held accountable for his actions if he fails to obey the law.  Not perfect, but a little extra safety for virtually no loss of liberty.

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1280 on: June 14, 2016, 10:25:55 AM »
Well, then.  I guess there still is a pattern here worth taking note of.  All of the newsworthy shootings that have occurred in my recent memory have all occurred in locations wherein personally owned firearms were actually banned.
I'm not sure that guns were banned at the Auroa, CO theater where the 2012 Batman movie shooting occured. Of course the gunman there used the dark theater and smoke to provide concealment while atacking a group that was fully distracted by a movie that has scenes where the sound of a gunshot might be expected.

I'm an NRA member who agrees with this, at least conceptually.  The trouble comes when people start arguing over what information on the background check makes it ok or not ok to own a gun. 

And even if you do enact legislation like that, you STILL will have the problem of both buyer & seller not respecting the law, so you don't have perfect elimination of the honor system concept.
I would be fully supportive of laws requiring gun owners to have a permit to own guns provided that: there is no cost to the gun owner to obtain a permit and the only reasons for denying the permit are violent history; mental illness; or incompetence at safe use, handling, and storage. If this were the law, I would personally apply for a permit even though I am very unlikely to purchase a gun (cost/benefit of gun ownership is not satisfactory to me - I don't hunt or particularly enjoy shooting sports, but am not disinterested in the concept of having armed citizen defenders arround me). If the license also served as government issued photo ID, I'd probably use it as my primary ID card except when driving. Private gun sales would be fine as long as the seller verifies the buyer's ID and permit.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1281 on: June 14, 2016, 11:01:27 AM »
When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Skill based licensing? So that mass shooters would be even better trained? Obviously these people are pretty skilled with their weapons, judging by the death toll.
Background checks - San Bernadino, Orlando, Dylan Roof, etc. - these people passed all of the current background checks required in this country. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to pass a skill test?
Cross referencing gun owners...? none of these people committed massive crimes before their shoot-outs, which is why they were able to buy their guns legally, with a full background check. Hell, the FBI runs the NICS database at the moment; how much more could you really add?


Do you have any suggestions that are not currently being used that would prevent mass shootings? California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; still had a mass shooting. Several, actually. 

I understand that there are small windows for improvements in the current laws, but almost none of them would stop any of the latest mass shootings.

Rounding up and banning semi-automatic weapons is right up there with rounding up and banning Muslims. They would have similar reductions in public terror attacks in the United States, and be similarly encroaching upon people's rights.
Start taking domestic violence seriously and make it illegal for those who have abused others to get guns.  And no banning a weapon is in no way similar to banning a person.

I thought those convicted of domestic abuse were already prohibited from buying or possessing firearms.
Depends on the state....which is a problem.  As is them having them when they are charged, because it is one of the most likely times for a victim to be shot.   

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1282 on: June 14, 2016, 11:03:23 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1283 on: June 14, 2016, 11:05:08 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1284 on: June 14, 2016, 11:09:45 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.

Prohibiting someone from owning a weapon is utterly pointless if that person can still easily buy the weapon.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1285 on: June 14, 2016, 11:20:29 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.

Prohibiting someone from owning a weapon is utterly pointless if that person can still easily buy the weapon.

Steve - Again, the poster started with a narrative that it should be illegal for DV abusers to possess a firearm.  It is. 

If laws are unenforceable as you claim, why have laws at all?  A prohibited person in possession of a firearm is a crime.  If the govt catches them with it, they have a problem just like any other crime.

While I agree that prohibiting transfers between private parties would make it difficult for all prohibited persons to obtain firearms, some of the proposals have included limitations loaning guns to friends, etc. (friends who can legally possess a firearm) which is a stupid idea.  In addition, many in the US are against a registry. 

In all honesty, if there was way to check a private sale w/o creating a registry and providing an easy way to prove a gun had been transferred for the seller I would support that. 

I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 11:23:00 AM by Midwest »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1286 on: June 14, 2016, 11:22:21 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.
Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  Just took the most recent state and googled.  Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.   

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1287 on: June 14, 2016, 11:25:13 AM »
And in regard to the only federal law it is if and only if the person "has the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element".  In addition, the offender must:
Be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
Share a child in common with the victim;
Be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or
Be similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.3
Note also that a conviction requires that the offender was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel and was tried by a jury or waived the right to a jury, if the offense entitled the offender to a jury trial.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1288 on: June 14, 2016, 11:27:52 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.
Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  Just took the most recent state and googled.  Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.   

Florida doesn't need a separate statue, It's a federal law.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/report/misdemeanor-crimes-domestic-violence-and-federal-firearms-prohibitions/download

I'll anticipate your next question - Felons are generally prohibited from possessing firearms as well.  This would include those convicted of felony DV.

With regard non-charged/non-convicted crimes, we live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.

If we want to start looking at prohibiting people who are being investigated, this is an interesting article. - http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/hillary-people-under-fbi-investigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1289 on: June 14, 2016, 11:33:53 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.
Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  Just took the most recent state and googled.  Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.   

Florida doesn't need a separate statue, It's a federal law.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/report/misdemeanor-crimes-domestic-violence-and-federal-firearms-prohibitions/download

I'll anticipate your next question - Felons are generally prohibited from possessing firearms as well.  This would include those convicted of felony DV.

With regard non-charged/non-convicted crimes, we live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.

If we want to start looking at prohibiting people who are being investigated, this is an interesting article. - http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/hillary-people-under-fbi-investigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/
See one post above you. And most DVs are considered not considered felonies.  And given we have no problem putting people in jail once they have been charged with a crime, not convicted, I don't see how this should be treated any different.  Also investigated is different than charged.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1290 on: June 14, 2016, 11:37:13 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.

Prohibiting someone from owning a weapon is utterly pointless if that person can still easily buy the weapon.

If laws are unenforceable as you claim, why have laws at all?  A prohibited person in possession of a firearm is a crime.  If the govt catches them with it, they have a problem just like any other crime.

Laws are perfectly enforceable.  They're enforced when someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer.  They're enforced to increase a sentence after a person uses a gun to commit a crime.

The law should be enforced every time a gun is sold.


While I agree that prohibiting transfers between private parties would make it difficult for all prohibited persons to obtain firearms, some of the proposals have included limitations loaning guns to friends, etc. (friends who can legally possess a firearm) which is a stupid idea. 

That does sound stupid.  As long as you've done a check on your friend and know that he/she can legally posses a firearm I don't see any reason that lending a gun to someone else would be an issue.


In addition, many in the US are against a registry. 

Their arguments should be heard and then decided upon.  They shouldn't be able to hold the chance of any change for better hostage by being really loud though.


In all honesty, if there was way to check a private sale w/o creating a registry and providing an easy way to prove a gun had been transferred for the seller I would support that.

So as long as there's no possible way for it to happen you support it?  :P


I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1291 on: June 14, 2016, 11:42:34 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.
Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  Just took the most recent state and googled.  Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.   

Florida doesn't need a separate statue, It's a federal law.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/report/misdemeanor-crimes-domestic-violence-and-federal-firearms-prohibitions/download

I'll anticipate your next question - Felons are generally prohibited from possessing firearms as well.  This would include those convicted of felony DV.

With regard non-charged/non-convicted crimes, we live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.

If we want to start looking at prohibiting people who are being investigated, this is an interesting article. - http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/hillary-people-under-fbi-investigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/
See one post above you. And most DVs are considered not considered felonies.  And given we have no problem putting people in jail once they have been charged with a crime, not convicted, I don't see how this should be treated any different.  Also investigated is different than charged.

Gin - I was the jury foreman on a DV case.  if you beat the shit out of your spouse, it's felony battery in my state.  The case I was on (we convicted him), he punched the girlfriend one time while they were both high on crack and received a 6 year sentence with a felony conviction.

I suspect the reason that most DV are misdemeanors is because they are minor incidents.  You're right people sometimes get away with DV.  The system isn't perfect but the alternative is to take away rights from people w/o a jury trial or even after they are exonerated.  That's a much worse alternative.

My point stands, those convicted of DV lose their rights in nearly all cases with a conviction.  If someone is charged, I don't believe they should permanently lose their rights. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1292 on: June 14, 2016, 11:48:57 AM »
Aren't you prohibited from having guns just from being charged with DV? I swear I've heard that's the case.
In most states no.

But you are clearly prohibited after being convicted.
Actually no: Florida has no law prohibiting individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  Just took the most recent state and googled.  Also keep in mind many DV cases never get to court because the police don't take them seriously (may have to do with the fact that cops as a profession have the highest incident rate) and the shooter did abuse his wife but was never convicted.   

Florida doesn't need a separate statue, It's a federal law.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/report/misdemeanor-crimes-domestic-violence-and-federal-firearms-prohibitions/download

I'll anticipate your next question - Felons are generally prohibited from possessing firearms as well.  This would include those convicted of felony DV.

With regard non-charged/non-convicted crimes, we live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.

If we want to start looking at prohibiting people who are being investigated, this is an interesting article. - http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/13/hillary-people-under-fbi-investigation-should-lose-constitutional-rights/
See one post above you. And most DVs are considered not considered felonies.  And given we have no problem putting people in jail once they have been charged with a crime, not convicted, I don't see how this should be treated any different.  Also investigated is different than charged.

Gin - I was the jury foreman on a DV case.  if you beat the shit out of your spouse, it's felony battery in my state.  The case I was on (we convicted him), he punched the girlfriend one time while they were both high on crack and received a 6 year sentence with a felony conviction.

I suspect the reason that most DV are misdemeanors is because they are minor incidents.  You're right people sometimes get away with DV.  The system isn't perfect but the alternative is to take away rights from people w/o a jury trial or even after they are exonerated.  That's a much worse alternative.

My point stands, those convicted of DV lose their rights in nearly all cases with a conviction.  If someone is charged, I don't believe they should permanently lose their rights.
The problem is that many states are not that strict.  What happened to the ex-wife would not have been a felony in florida but we know from research that DV escalate.  And I never said permanently if they were charged and declared not guilty, but I admit I was not clear.  I assumed that by equally it to being jailed it was be assumed that if the case was completed and the accused won, they could get access back.  But I'll be more clear in the future.  If you are charged with DV you should not be able to have access to a gun unless you are declared not guilty. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1293 on: June 14, 2016, 11:50:53 AM »
I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable.  In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops.  If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area.  Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1294 on: June 14, 2016, 11:57:58 AM »
I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable.  In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops.  If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area.  Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon.  Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows.  You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1295 on: June 14, 2016, 12:00:29 PM »

Gin - I was the jury foreman on a DV case.  if you beat the shit out of your spouse, it's felony battery in my state.  The case I was on (we convicted him), he punched the girlfriend one time while they were both high on crack and received a 6 year sentence with a felony conviction.

I suspect the reason that most DV are misdemeanors is because they are minor incidents.  You're right people sometimes get away with DV.  The system isn't perfect but the alternative is to take away rights from people w/o a jury trial or even after they are exonerated.  That's a much worse alternative.

My point stands, those convicted of DV lose their rights in nearly all cases with a conviction.  If someone is charged, I don't believe they should permanently lose their rights.
The problem is that many states are not that strict.  What happened to the ex-wife would not have been a felony in florida but we know from research that DV escalate.  And I never said permanently if they were charged and declared not guilty, but I admit I was not clear.  I assumed that by equally it to being jailed it was be assumed that if the case was completed and the accused won, they could get access back.  But I'll be more clear in the future.  If you are charged with DV you should not be able to have access to a gun unless you are declared not guilty.

I'm not sure how you know this wouldn't have been a felony in Florida with the details I gave you.She had a black eye and visible bruising (maybe even a broken eye socket). 

I'm not familiar with the laws of all 50 states, but I suspect (felony or not) they would lose their gun rights in all 50 states for that once convicted.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1296 on: June 14, 2016, 12:03:30 PM »
And in regard to the only federal law it is if and only if the person "has the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element".  In addition, the offender must:
Be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
Share a child in common with the victim;
Be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or
Be similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.3
Note also that a conviction requires that the offender was represented by counsel or waived the right to counsel and was tried by a jury or waived the right to a jury, if the offense entitled the offender to a jury trial.
I'm not sure what your point is - that federal law requires that the trial wasn't mishandled?  Or that it requires it to be a domestic violence charge?  You posted an impressive list of criteria, but that list is awfully close to the list that classifies a crime as domestic violence in the first place.   

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1297 on: June 14, 2016, 12:07:00 PM »
I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable.  In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops.  If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area.  Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon.  Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows.  You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Steve - It wouldn't be a burden on gun owners, it would clear up the current state.  There are already limits for those selling guns without an FFL but the language is murky and Obama's recent executive action didn't help -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-actions-on-guns-legal-analysis/

Craigslist and ebay both prohibit gun sales.  As I said, you need an efficient marketplace to sell any volume of guns.  If you set a clear statute and enforce the penalties, unlicensed dealers will quit selling and you will be dealing with the occasional guy/gal who wants to unload a gun w/o an FFL.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1298 on: June 14, 2016, 12:21:28 PM »
I would also support the much simpler step of setting a limit on annual sales by non FFL persons.  I suspect a lot of the transfers you are concerned about occur through a smaller number of individuals.  Since FFL dealers are required to do a background check, the number of transfers w/o a background check should go down.

If you don't know who has firearms, you can't implement or enforce this either.

Steve - This would be fairly enforceable.  In order to sell guns efficiently, you need a marketplace (gun show or gun broker.com for example).

If you set a firm limit on number of transfers by unlicensed individuals and focused your enforcement in these areas, the number of transfers w/o background checks drops.  If you look on gunbroker or go to a gun show, I suspect you will see a few unlicensed individuals operating in the grey area.  Make it black and white and focus your efforts on them.

That doesn't in any way prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them, but imposes a burden on the freedom of every gun owner wanting to sell a weapon.  Seems like a tough sell.

There are an awful lot of ways you can privately sell a gun, from craigslist to online forums to gun shows.  You would have to cover every single one of those, and I don't see how that's possible without keeping a list of who has weapons.

Steve - It wouldn't be a burden on gun owners, it would clear up the current state.  There are already limits for those selling guns without an FFL but the language is murky and Obama's recent executive action didn't help -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-actions-on-guns-legal-analysis/

Craigslist and ebay both prohibit gun sales.  As I said, you need an efficient marketplace to sell any volume of guns.  If you set a clear statute and enforce the penalties, unlicensed dealers will quit selling and you will be dealing with the occasional guy/gal who wants to unload a gun w/o an FFL.

So just to be clear . . . under your proposed changes, I can meet a guy online and hand him a gun for cash with no questions asked?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1299 on: June 14, 2016, 12:38:45 PM »
It's also quite illegal to sell someone or acquire a gun for someone who can't legally own one. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason