Firearm rights

I would like to make a new thread to debate firearm rights so we can keep this debate out of some of the other threads. I believe that everyone in the world should be allowed to arm themselves. But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.

So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up? 

And like I said, if you bothered to read it, there is probably little you can do in the US, due to the vast amount of weaponry available in a country addicted to them. You made your bed, you get shot in it.

However in your original post (above) you seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world would like to be in your shoes, and I do not think we do, I mean I have fired guns and would like one, I would also like a tank and a trebuchet, would I want my neighbour to have one? No. Do I understand why it isn't a good idea, yes, ergo I am happy with the laws as they are, and I am pretty sure as a result of that sanity I will not be in the position of someone with an automatic rifle doing to my house what was done to yours.

... and a trebuchet

Wait, is there a law against trebuchets? I mean, I am sure you know the power of being able to launch a 90Kg object 300m. How any government could suppress you from that power is unthinkable to me.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 06:51:44 AM

I would like to make a new thread to debate firearm rights so we can keep this debate out of some of the other threads. I believe that everyone in the world should be allowed to arm themselves. But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.

Quote

So, I will ask you again, which law would have stopped my house from being shout up? 

And like I said, if you bothered to read it, there is probably little you can do in the US, due to the vast amount of weaponry available in a country addicted to them. You made your bed, you get shot in it.

However in your original post (above) you seem to be under the impression that the rest of the world would like to be in your shoes, and I do not think we do, I mean I have fired guns and would like one, I would also like a tank and a trebuchet, would I want my neighbour to have one? No. Do I understand why it isn't a good idea, yes, ergo I am happy with the laws as they are, and I am pretty sure as a result of that sanity I will not be in the position of someone with an automatic rifle doing to my house what was done to yours.

The weapon was already illegal.  They illegally shot at an occupied house.  The person they were after was not even here, and they were mad at him over drugs and money.  Which part of this could we legislate that would have prevented this crime?

Wait, is there a law against trebuchets?

TBH, I don't think the law has ever been challenged, however if the people across the road started to build one I would probably look at it a bit closer.

Orospu, are you being intentionally retarded? Or should I back off a bit until your carer explains that I have no idea of the processes of the law in your case, or any idea of how this could have been ameliorated to your satisfaction, because the US has fucked itself as far as gun- crime goes through its right to bear arms.

My point is we do not envy you!

I think Junker has already explained how adding more guns to a situation almost always results in more, not less, deaths. The fact even the hypothetical example involves shooting someone over less than a thousand dollars is pretty clear evidence that more people with guns means more people die.

But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.

But I'd like to focus on this part. I think people really misunderstand the second amendment. Let's look at the actual text.


   

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment guarantees the rights of a people to a militia, and clearly a militia needs weapons, but the idea that it grants individuals rights is a recent interpretation. It's only in 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) that the courts agreed that it grants individual rights, and those rights are not unlimited.

To say gun rights for individuals is enshrined in the constitution is false. It's more enshrined in some Bush-era 's judicial interpretation, and even in that your rights to guns are limited. You can have a gun, but not any gun you want and the government can (and should) put strong limitations on ammunition, modifications, and types of guns. The constitution protects your well-regulated militias, which in modern times is the National Guard.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 09:14:15 AM

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

You have no obligation to protect yourself.

Haha, you should have seen some of the devices my buddy and I built 40 years ago.
Mostly aerials, some buried ground shakers. 

What's your hearing like now? I still have "ringing in the ears" from X decades ago.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

And often the criminal can handle the weapon far more expertly that most householders, Son of Orospu and Bullwinkle excluded, of course.
The end result can be that the householder ends up dead ? and the crook gets another weapon to add to his arsenal.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 07:18:46 AM

Haha, you should have seen some of the devices my buddy and I built 40 years ago.
Mostly aerials, some buried ground shakers. 

What's your hearing like now? I still have "ringing in the ears" from X decades ago.

We took safety seriously.
Gloves. Goggles. Distance.

Some duds, some very high yield. 

We took safety seriously.
Gloves. Goggles. Distance.

Some duds, some very high yield. 

What do you think of the toxicity of red lead and magnesium powder as a "rocket" (more like a bazooka) propellant?
Not safe, poor I_SP, but it was available - what else mattered to a teenager?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 09:14:15 AM

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.

I think Junker has already explained how adding more guns to a situation almost always results in more, not less, deaths. The fact even the hypothetical example involves shooting someone over less than a thousand dollars is pretty clear evidence that more people with guns means more people die.

Quote from: Son of Orospu on March 20, 2019, 06:51:44 AM

But, in the US, it is written into the constitution.

But I'd like to focus on this part. I think people really misunderstand the second amendment. Let's look at the actual text.


   

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment guarantees the rights of a people to a militia, and clearly a militia needs weapons, but the idea that it grants individuals rights is a recent interpretation. It's only in 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) that the courts agreed that it grants individual rights, and those rights are not unlimited.

To say gun rights for individuals is enshrined in the constitution is false. It's more enshrined in some Bush-era 's judicial interpretation, and even in that your rights to guns are limited. You can have a gun, but not any gun you want and the government can (and should) put strong limitations on ammunition, modifications, and types of guns. The constitution protects your well-regulated militias, which in modern times is the National Guard.

What part of "the right of the people" is up for interpretation?  It is a right.  That means that it is not granted, it is a right to keep and bear arms.  And the militia part means that people can group together to form a military like unit, should the need arise, and already have the firearms to do so. 

Quote from: Junker on March 20, 2019, 09:16:46 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 09:14:15 AM

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.

I'd suggest that you stop succumbing to "feelz over realz."

Pure facts and logic say you're wrong, and the best you can counter with is some random strawman. I hope you get a friendly jury when you inevitably become unhinged.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 08:00:35 PM

Quote from: Junker on March 20, 2019, 09:16:46 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 20, 2019, 09:14:15 AM

It's really pretty simple.
You tell the robber to drop her weapon.
If she fires it instead, you shoot her.
If she turns to face you, you shoot her.

She has an obligation to comply with a legal command.
A legal command can be issued and enforced by any adult.

So instead of the vast probability of no one dying, you turn the situation into an almost guarantee of 1 or 2 people dying. Makes sense 

And in reality, "legal commands" from non-LEOs aren't a thing in practice aside from defending yourself in court after the fact.

If you want to help load your shit in your robber's car and give him a BJ before he drives away, fine.
That's your choice.

I'd suggest that you stop succumbing to "feelz over realz."

Pure facts and logic say you're wrong, and the best you can counter with is some random strawman. I hope you get a friendly jury when you inevitably become unhinged.

Have a great day, pussy.

Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.

I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.

The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.

People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.

The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.

This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.

Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?

What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?

This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.

Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.

Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.

I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.

The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.

People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.

The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.

This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.

Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?

What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?

This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.

Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.

The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do.  If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever.  That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage. 

New Zealand is to ban semi-automatics and military style assault weapons in response to the recent killings, that is sane, I dare say they too will have posturing arm-chair heroes convinced by hours of playing Battlefield that they have the cohones and skills to do the right thing, thankfully it probably won’t be necessary now as both the UK and Australia found when they did similar.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 21, 2019, 01:11:46 AM

Ok I've just jumped into this topic to give my view on the actual topic title.

I don't believe any civilian should be allowed to carry a firearm away from their own property. No concealed carrying or anything.
Owning a firearm or two in your own home in a locked, secure case to be used in the event of a threat by home invaders would be acceptable in my eyes.

The problem these days with owning and carrying of guns on the street is the potential and ease in which it can be produced and used in a split second bout of irritation or altercation.

People who say they feel safer if they carry a gun are not safer in my opinion, they just feel it because they think people will think twice about attacking/robbing them.
Although this may appear to be some kind of truth, I think it actually hands the attacker the potential to do more harm by striking first with their own firearm...knowing you potentially have one.

The real issue is in stopping those that do own firearms and do carry them on the street. Those people need to be stopped/come down on, heavily.

This might not go down too well with those in America seeing this written by someone from England, seeing that we do not have owner carrying laws or even home protection laws with locked cabinets...except for those who go to shooting ranges and hunting, which even then there's a certain restriction on calibre of weapon.

Look at the knife crime in England.
Do you think people carrying flick knives for their own protection is a good thing?

What about carrying concealed truncheons or knuckle dusters?

This is what should happen.
All guns and all knives or deliberate offensive weapons carried by a person in public should be come down on extremely heavily, all across the board for those who do not have a licence to carry the weapon.

Ban them all and make sure the punishment fits the crime of having them in carrying or in use.

The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do.  If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever.  That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage.

I agree with you in terms of how it is right now and this is why I mention about punishment fitting the crime.

Just like potential murderers or whatever will still murder regardless of the death penalty, so will certain criminals carrying guns, shoot people.

There will never be a perfect answer to stopping it altogether but I believe you can significantly reduce the potential of gun crime and the number of people carrying by simply banning firearms, altogether as a stringent rule on the streets.

You not only take away the ease in which guns can come into criminal contact but you also have a message sent out for any potential criminal who feels carrying a gun is cool and a scare tactic in committing a crime, that being caught in possession on the streets results in 5 years hard labour just for carrying and no exceptions to the rule.

From there the penalties get stiffer.

Now, fair enough you will not stop the hard core gun toting people in a quick fix but you will massively lower the number who potentially take that road...meaning...by percentage, that gun crime becomes insignificant on the whole and people will naturally feel much safer knowing the real penalties for use of such weapons.

Let's put it plainer. Even certain hardcore gun users/criminals take great pains to ensure their weapons are brought in by stealth and they know in those weapons their jail time would be substantial.
Not many want to go to jail for a length of time that strips their young lives away to be replaced by a wasted ageing streetwalker after parole, if it becomes a case.

In a childish sort of way it comes down to this.
If I bring a knife, you bring a bigger knife. If You bring a bigger knife, I bring a sword. If I bring a sword, you bring a small gun and so on and so on.

What I'm saying is, people being allowed to carry and use in what they deem, a situation requiring it, may come up against someone who brings the bigger gun to the table knowing what you're allowed to carry.
Not only does it put your life in bigger danger but potentially could lead to many more lives being lost in the event of you reacting to a situation that may not actually require it.
Basically scare tactics being reacted upon by real time actions of you and your gun, creating a real time reaction from the criminal using his/her gun which may have not even happened if you'd never produced your gun.

If's and but's...yet the situation would be generally created in that scenario, I think.

The reality in life is, most people would be far too scared to even go for a gun and use it. The bigger reality is most people wouldn't be able to effectively use a gun for its intended purpose.
You may if you are army trained.
Some may if they are shooting range trained.

By the looks of it, most criminals can't even use a gun properly from what I've seen.
The likelihood of anyone using a firearm in a situation would result in collateral damage rather than localised.

That's obviously just my opinion based on how I see the things panning out.

The problem is that, inherently, criminals do not follow laws, although us good people do.  If you say that people can not carry weapons anymore, 99.9% of the people would happily compy, but the criminals would continue to carry their knives or pistols or brass knuckles or whatever.  That would seem to put us good people at a disadvantage.

You seem ignorant of how proper gun control laws work elsewhere in the world.   They work.

New Zealand is to ban semi-automatics and military style assault weapons in response to the recent killings, that is sane, I dare say they too will have posturing arm-chair heroes convinced by hours of playing Battlefield that they have the cohones and skills to do the right thing, thankfully it probably won’t be necessary now as both the UK and Australia found when they did similar.

People should not be allowed to raise their fists above their belly button.
That would eliminate fist fights.

And there should be a law that makes everyone be nice.


Plus some law to appease the lesbians. 

It's much harder for people who are basically used to gun carrying, to be coaxed away from gun carrying.
If I was to go to a place where they openly carried guns, I'd be as wary as all hell.

People get desensitized to all kinds of stuff and this is the case with gun carrying in parts of the world where it becomes regular and normal.
People are still wary but not generally scared like someone from outside of that area who comes into it would be.

I well understand how people need to feel safe.
Most people feel safer with a big dog in their homes.
Some feel safer with a baseball bat beside their bed.

What I generally think about, also, is kids getting their hands on someone's weapon and treating it as some kind of game.
Of course, in a home with a gun locked away, the chances of that happening are slim...but then again the chances of being able to get to it and use it if your home is invaded, diminished, unless it's beside your bed or something.

The real issue is to stop the spread of the disease of gun crime before you can stop the people from wanting to own the weapons that they feel they can aid in doing that but not realising they are adding to it.

A North Korean Brit talking about guns.

Nice.

It's like saying car keys should be locked in a safe to keep them away from children.

People treat guns as something scary and dangerous.
A pot of boiling water is scary and dangerous.
The cabinet under the sink is scary and dangerous.

If you are afraid of firearms, don't have any. Your choice.

A North Korean Brit talking about guns.

Nice.

Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.

I understand your apprehension about kids getting ahold of a firearm.  I, personally, had three boys.  They got their first firearm around the time they were physically able to handle them, around 8 to 10 years old, and they had knives from the time that I felt they would not poke each other, maybe 6 or so.  I feel that my sons will never mishandle a firearm due to the fact that they have been not only handling, but also shooting them for most of their lives.  In fact, my eldest son just had a birthday a few weeks back, and he got a new 12 gauge shotgun.  He was planning to come by today to shoot and visit, but the weather is shitty, so I am trying to entice him with pot roast instead, lol. 

However, I do understand that some people are not very responsible when it comes to children and firearms.  You can't legislate stupid, and I don't think that you should take firearms away from normal people because of these idiots. 

I forgot to mention that my boys started off with BB guns.  They got those as soon as they could physically hold them, and I kept them in my room until I felt that they were responsible enough to keep them in their rooms. 

What is glaringly apparent from all the statistics I have seen, is the perceived feeling of safety is false.

Guns kill, they do so in accidents, by suicide and murder, incidences of all three obviously go up if you have access to a gun, you can’t have a fatal accident with a gun if you don’t have one, but suicide is also more prevalent in households with a gun than without, it is a relatively easy and final way to shuffle off, so parents with guns are actually putting their children at greater risk of death.

The frequent line taken by our resident hardmen is, if everyone gets a gun it’s self-evident that crime will be less, presumably as the site of Bully coming down the street packing is a deterrent in itself (forgive me while I gather myself), but this from Scientific American;

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

So, you are not safer with a gun, and if you have kids they are in more danger if you possess them, and nobody fears Wyatt Bulwinkle and his swagger.

In the US, the least likely places to get shot are the ones where people are likely to have a firearm.  Coincidence? 

Quote from: sokarul on March 21, 2019, 03:41:58 AM

A North Korean Brit talking about guns.

Nice.

Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.

I do agree you could never teach me anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 21, 2019, 04:47:19 AM

Quote from: sokarul on March 21, 2019, 03:41:58 AM

A North Korean Brit talking about guns.

Nice.

Maybe you need to learn a few things. Jimmythecrab may be able to help you, because you are definitely switched off.

I do agree you could never teach me anything.

Please don't do this shit in this serious thread.  We are trying to have a discussion.