Author Topic: gun epidemic  (Read 430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #116 on: February 19, 2015, 12:03:44 PM »
Right, because every single person who has ever posted in this topic argued that we needed the strictest gun control laws possible.

Get a grip, epidemic.

And quit with the inanely stupid sarcasm.  I can be a lot more sarcastic than I was in this post.

I contend our laws are strict enough and even too strict in many cases.  I have not seen a whole lot of people making direct detailed suggestions for laws.  I have seen many global ones like the one that got this man in trouble.  Laws that make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5685
  • Darwins +670/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #117 on: February 19, 2015, 12:32:37 PM »
Perhaps they are.  I'm all for simplifying and condensing the laws we do have, rather than depending on state-by-state or even county-by-county jurisdictions which look like a patchwork quilt on acid.  But part of the reason that we have such a patchwork quilt is because in some places you have people who favor being permissive with guns, and in others, you have people who favor being restrictive with them.  So they pass laws which suit themselves.  However, that causes problems, because people don't stay in one place.  People who favor permissive laws want to bring their guns with them; people who favor restrictive laws don't feel safe in places which are permissive.  Even worse than that, the relatively easy availability of guns in permissive states tends to mean that some of them end up in places which are more restrictive, which causes no end of problems.  And there's also the fact that it's easier for people who shouldn't have guns to acquire them in places where the law is more permissive.

I'd be all for having gun laws overall be comparable to car laws.  You have to have a license to use a car; you have a title which has to be legally transferred to each new owner; you have to buy a new tag periodically; and you have to have liability insurance on the car.  Plus a few other things along those lines.  I don't think that would fix all the problems, in large part because we have a huge number of guns in this country, and tracking them all down would be a pain.  But it would be a good starting point, and one that isn't excessively restrictive.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 13131
  • Darwins +773/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #118 on: February 19, 2015, 01:20:16 PM »
I contend our laws are strict enough and even too strict in many cases.  I have not seen a whole lot of people making direct detailed suggestions for laws.  I have seen many global ones like the one that got this man in trouble. 

The main way to make guns safer is to not allow criminals, the mentally ill and idiots to get them.  The problem is, a lot of gun nuts do not want to do anything to make guns safer.

Laws that make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Sure, sure.  Except, you know, every law does that.  Because until a thing is made illegal, it's legal.  And the people doing it are, you know, otherwise law-abiding citizens.



As a side note, I'm splitting all this out into another thread.  This thread was made for gun fails, specifically to be separated from general gun discussions.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #119 on: February 19, 2015, 01:26:42 PM »
Perhaps they are.  I'm all for simplifying and condensing the laws we do have, rather than depending on state-by-state or even county-by-county jurisdictions which look like a patchwork quilt on acid.  But part of the reason that we have such a patchwork quilt is because in some places you have people who favor being permissive with guns, and in others, you have people who favor being restrictive with them.  So they pass laws which suit themselves.  However, that causes problems, because people don't stay in one place.  People who favor permissive laws want to bring their guns with them; people who favor restrictive laws don't feel safe in places which are permissive.  Even worse than that, the relatively easy availability of guns in permissive states tends to mean that some of them end up in places which are more restrictive, which causes no end of problems.  And there's also the fact that it's easier for people who shouldn't have guns to acquire them in places where the law is more permissive.

I'd be all for having gun laws overall be comparable to car laws.  You have to have a license to use a car; you have a title which has to be legally transferred to each new owner; you have to buy a new tag periodically; and you have to have liability insurance on the car.  Plus a few other things along those lines.  I don't think that would fix all the problems, in large part because we have a huge number of guns in this country, and tracking them all down would be a pain.  But it would be a good starting point, and one that isn't excessively restrictive.


My Short list of gun laws.

1) You can not use a gun to murder people
2) You may not brandish your weapon unless a reasonable man would feel threatened.
3) You can not knowingly sell a gun to a felon.  Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
4) You can not sell a gun to an insane person  Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
5) Reasonable restrictions should be placed on children's access to guns.  (this is a really loaded one.) 
6) Basic Safety training is required to purchase your first gun.
7) Use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a crime.
8) Background check is required to purchase your first gun.  Although I am amenable to each purchase.
9) GWI is illegal.  Gunning while intoxicated is a crime.

Permissions
1) You can carry a federally licensed gun in any state.
2) Castle Doctrine, anyone who enters your house with out permission with ill intent may be considered an armed threat and brandish and or use of force is authorized.
3) Stand Your Ground any situation where a "reasonable" man would determine a threat to life and limb may brandish and or use deadly force.
4) The number of bullets used to eliminate a threat in 2 and 3 is irrelevant.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 01:29:16 PM by epidemic »

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5685
  • Darwins +670/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #120 on: February 19, 2015, 02:17:31 PM »
My Short list of gun laws.
There are some problems with it, which I'll address individually.

Quote from: epidemic
1) You can not use a gun to murder people
Why is this necessary?  Why should it matter what weapon or tool a person uses to commit murder?  The point is, you outlaw murder, regardless of the tool used.

Quote from: epidemic
2) You may not brandish your weapon unless a reasonable man would feel threatened.
Unnecessary; self-defense laws should already cover this.

Quote from: epidemic
3) You can not knowingly sell a gun to a felon.  Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
4) You can not sell a gun to an insane person  Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
Both of these are okay.

Quote from: epidemic
5) Reasonable restrictions should be placed on children's access to guns.  (this is a really loaded one.)
You need to define what you consider reasonable.

Quote from: epidemic
6) Basic Safety training is required to purchase your first gun.
Not just your first gun, but every gun.  You should also need to get re-certification periodically.

Quote from: epidemic
7) Use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a crime.
I think it is already the case that the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime is itself a crime.  This doesn't need to be gun-specific.

Quote from: epidemic
8) Background check is required to purchase your first gun.  Although I am amenable to each purchase.
I have a better alternative.  Make it so that a person has to have a license in order to be able to purchase guns, and make it so that the process of renewing said license includes an automatic background check.  Then you don't need to have the seller do a background check, they just call the relevant office and confirm that the data on the card is correct.

Quote from: epidemic
9) GWI is illegal.  Gunning while intoxicated is a crime.
If you mean carrying a gun while intoxicated, I agree.

Quote from: epidemic
Permissions
1) You can carry a federally licensed gun in any state.
I would agree with this.  Federal law supersedes state law, after all.

Quote from: epidemic
2) Castle Doctrine, anyone who enters your house with out permission with ill intent may be considered an armed threat and brandish and or use of force is authorized.
I disagree with this and cannot support it.  This is nothing less than a license to kill without recourse to the courts or actual legal proceedings.

Quote from: epidemic
3) Stand Your Ground any situation where a "reasonable" man would determine a threat to life and limb may brandish and or use deadly force.
Again, this is nothing less than a license to kill, and thus I cannot support it.  Furthermore, it is a very poorly formulated doctrine.  All we have to do is look at the Zimmerman/Martin incident to see just why it's a bad idea.  Zimmerman had no reason to run around the complex he was in when he knew there was a possible intruder who, for all he knew, could have been armed.  In fact, he was told as much when he contacted the police.  Instead, he stupidly pursued Martin, ended up getting seriously beaten, and as a direct result of being armed, ended up in a "kill or be killed" situation.  This is the sort of inane stupidity that will inevitably come about as a result of something like this.

Both the castle doctrine and stand your ground authorize what are essentially vigilante actions by citizens, which go against the whole point of a law-abiding society.  This isn't something I'm willing to compromise over when it comes to an overall federal law, I'm afraid.  I don't even approve of them when it comes to a state law, but that's less egregious.

Quote from: epidemic
4) The number of bullets used to eliminate a threat in 2 and 3 is irrelevant.
Sorry, but this is very relevant.  In both situations, it's entirely possible to accidentally hit a bystander or damage someone else's property; bullets don't necessarily stop when they hit a house wall, either.  At the very least, they need to be civilly liable for any damage they do with their gun, which necessitates something like gun insurance.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #121 on: February 19, 2015, 03:39:32 PM »

Why is this necessary?  Why should it matter what weapon or tool a person uses to commit murder?  The point is, you outlaw murder, regardless of the tool used.

I agree Murder is the key the tool is irrelevant. 

Quote
Unnecessary; self-defense laws should already cover this.

I again agree.  Again concession to anti gun crowd.



Quote
Both of these are okay.
I just wonder how we get 20,000 laws on the books regarding guns even if we put these laws in place in 50 states and they changed them slightly 20,000 is still ridiculous.



Quote
You need to define what you consider reasonable.
 

This would take some serious thought because there was the 11 year old who shot home invaders and cougar.   I am thinking that the restriction would be very hard to nail down.  It is a function of personal evaluation of the kids ability, safety training.  We all can agree that 5 years old is simply not capable of safe operation of a gun with out the closest of observation.  But 11 year olds frequently go hunting with dad So I am simply not sure how phrase this one.


Quote
Not just your first gun, but every gun.  You should also need to get re-certification periodically.

I liked your answer below about licensing and recertification.

Quote
I think it is already the case that the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime is itself a crime.  This doesn't need to be gun-specific.

It may be a law but I am just putting it on the list of reasonable laws.


Quote
I have a better alternative.  Make it so that a person has to have a license in order to be able to purchase guns, and make it so that the process of renewing said license includes an automatic background check.  Then you don't need to have the seller do a background check, they just call the relevant office and confirm that the data on the card is correct..

As stated above I think I like this, it solves many problems and improves my ability to transfer my guns at full value with out a middle man.

Quote
If you mean carrying a gun while intoxicated, I agree.

Yes I agree.  You can go to a bar and not drink.  But intoxication levels in keeping with cars should probably apply to carrying a weapon.


Quote
1) You can carry a federally licensed gun in any stateI would agree with this.  Federal law supersedes state law, after all..


Quote
I disagree with this and cannot support it.  This is nothing less than a license to kill without recourse to the courts or actual legal proceedings.
  Yes it is.  If you are in my house with out my permission I am allowed to assume you are there for no good.  I do not need to wait for you to make the first move.   There is a clear delineation between inside my house and outside my house, you cross it at your own peril.  Of course you do not like Castle Doctrine so you will disagree but can you tell me why I should not be allowed to assume you plan to do me harm.


Quote
Again, this is nothing less than a license to kill, and thus I cannot support it.  Furthermore, it is a very poorly formulated doctrine.  All we have to do is look at the Zimmerman/Martin incident to see just why it's a bad idea.  Zimmerman had no reason to run around the complex he was in when he knew there was a possible intruder who, for all he knew, could have been armed.  In fact, he was told as much when he contacted the police.  Instead, he stupidly pursued Martin, ended up getting seriously beaten, and as a direct result of being armed, ended up in a "kill or be killed" situation.  This is the sort of inane stupidity that will inevitably come about as a result of something like this.

this all boils down to the reasonable mans standard.  You risk a jury not believing it was reasonable.  That is the check and balance.  Just as people get away with murder for Miranda violations the law does put the burden on the state when it comes to legal matters.

Quote
Both the castle doctrine and stand your ground authorize what are essentially vigilante actions by citizens, which go against the whole point of a law-abiding society.  This isn't something I'm willing to compromise over when it comes to an overall federal law, I'm afraid.  I don't even approve of them when it comes to a state law, but that's less egregious.

No they do not authorize vigilante actions,  the reasonable mans standard again the check and balance.   If I get out of my car and confront a person bust him in the mouth and he beats me down a jury will look at the facts and determine whether my actions were reasonable.

Quote
Sorry, but this is very relevant.  In both situations, it's entirely possible to accidentally hit a bystander or damage someone else's property; bullets don't necessarily stop when they hit a house wall, either.  At the very least, they need to be civilly liable for any damage they do with their gun, which necessitates something like gun insurance.

I am not a fan of gun insurance unless the rates are truly in keeping with the threat.  I might bite on 5 to 10 dollars a year for home defense and maybe 30 dollars per CCW permit.  Each of these would be based upon the use not the number of guns.  I am not likely to shoot my neighbors car with all my guns simultaneously.   The risk each additional gun poses does not increase others lives or property.   These numbers might even vary based upon environment.  I would have a hard time getting a bullet to my neighbors house even if I tried.  But in an urban environment...

Type of weapon and ammunition used might factor in  Home defense with glaser ammo will not make it through a wall standard wall.  It is designed to turn to dust on impact. 

The insurance would be a complicated issue. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5685
  • Darwins +670/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #122 on: February 19, 2015, 06:10:43 PM »
I don't have time for a lengthy response right now, but I did want to address this "20,000 gun control law" myth, which has been cited since at least 1965.

http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

There are not twenty thousand gun laws on the books, even if you count localities as well as the states and the federal government.  There probably aren't even a full thousand.  There are only around 300 state and federal laws; most states (more than 40) have passed laws preempting local gun laws since the 1980s, meaning that the number of gun laws has necessarily declined since then.

In short, we not only don't have 20,000 gun laws in place, we don't even have a twentieth of that number in place.  That claim is nothing more than hyperbole used by the NRA and other such groups, used to fool people into believing that gun control laws are absurdly ineffective, rather than as a serious point for discussion.

Offline OccamsRazor

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #123 on: February 19, 2015, 08:21:55 PM »
Castle doctrine and SYG are legalizing murder; all you have to do is stretch the definition of "reasonable" to cover whatever situation you need.
"Oh wearisome condition of humanity!
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity;
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
Richard Fulke Greville

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #124 on: February 20, 2015, 07:49:58 AM »
Castle doctrine and SYG are legalizing murder; all you have to do is stretch the definition of "reasonable" to cover whatever situation you need.
No that is not all you have to do.   You have to convince a DA, Jury and or  a judge that it was reasonable. 

What is wrong with a DA, Judge and Jury, deciding whether they would reasonably have felt their life was threatened.  It sounds like a reasonable standard to me.  Are you suggesting that you can only defend yourself from a life threatening situation when it is proven to life threatening.  Should you have to wait until you are actually stabbed, shot or beaten to near unconsciousness?  Or should you never use deadly force because it takes the life of your assailant.  I get a statistical 78 - 79  years in this world,  once someone proves themselves to be a scoff at my rights to life, by threatening mine they surrender their right to life.  It is as simple as that.   I really don't care if they really mean it because that is impossible to prove at the time.  The only way to prove it is to let things unfold on their terms and hope for the best. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5685
  • Darwins +670/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #125 on: February 20, 2015, 08:36:17 AM »
epidemic:  I want you to respond to my earlier post about the "20,000 gun laws" myth.  I am no longer willing to overlook excessive hyperbole that has no basis in fact and is used primarily to give the appearance that there are far too many gun laws on the books, when in fact there's only a fraction of the laws claimed by this oft-quoted figure.  More to the point, I want you to respond to it specifically, rather than burying it in the middle of one of my lengthy posts.

It's one thing to be in support of gun ownership, but it's quite another to be willing to swallow excessive exaggerations, if not outright lies, in the pursuit of it.  Which says nothing about the people actually doing the exaggerations or lies.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 13131
  • Darwins +773/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #126 on: February 20, 2015, 09:39:40 AM »
I just wonder how we get 20,000 laws on the books regarding guns even if we put these laws in place in 50 states and they changed them slightly 20,000 is still ridiculous.

I agree, it is totally ridiculous. So ridiculous, in fact, that I don't believe it.  It sounds like an urban myth.  As a rule of thumb, anything that sounds ridiculous requres further validation.  When I hear some crazy thing some repub was alleged to have said, I require at least one other source for confirmation.  Same for stuff like this. 

According to Jaime's link, this bit of propaganda has been in circulation since 1965, and probably perpetuated by the NRA.  You maybe ought to look at the NRA as the Answers In Genesis for gun nuts.  Professional liars and propagandists who say things you like to hear, but probably does not reflect reality.


Yes I agree.  You can go to a bar and not drink.  But intoxication levels in keeping with cars should probably apply to carrying a weapon.

This is a very bad idea.

For one, we already know that otherwise law abiding people all too frequently drive after drinking too much.  Otherwise law abiding gun owners will do it too.  And it is a tough thing to enforce.

Secondly, I don't think bringing a gun into a bar is a good idea either.  In bars, people are more inclined to do stupid things.  Like get in a fight or even just have a heated confrontation.  And so trouble may find a gun owner who might not even be drinking, and someone will end up getting shot when the outcome instead might have been just a fat lip.  Bringing a gun into that environment is just asking for trouble.  It is no deterrent and only escalates consequences.

No, ep, this is a really stupid idea.


If I were a business owner in some gun-lax state, anyone found on the premises with a weapon would be assumed to be there to do harm and would be shot without question.  Even if he's sitting at a table eating dinner with his family and has a CCL.  Probably ought to shoot the rest of the family too, just for good measure, since they are with him and could be carrying too.

How's that for applying the Castle Doctrine?




Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #127 on: February 20, 2015, 09:52:58 AM »
epidemic:  I want you to respond to my earlier post about the "20,000 gun laws" myth.  I am no longer willing to overlook excessive hyperbole that has no basis in fact and is used primarily to give the appearance that there are far too many gun laws on the books, when in fact there's only a fraction of the laws claimed by this oft-quoted figure.  More to the point, I want you to respond to it specifically, rather than burying it in the middle of one of my lengthy posts.

It's one thing to be in support of gun ownership, but it's quite another to be willing to swallow excessive exaggerations, if not outright lies, in the pursuit of it.  Which says nothing about the people actually doing the exaggerations or lies.

There was no intent to misinform, it is a number that has been used many times and I have never looked into it.   I simply assumed that it referred to the massive number of federal, state, and LOCAL laws.  It seemed like an outlandish claim, but I assumed it was sourced and stretched out of facts using redundant laws at all levels of government.  It did not seem to be beyond the realm of possibility depending on how you tallied it. 

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1622
  • Darwins +122/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #128 on: February 20, 2015, 09:54:26 AM »

If I were a business owner in some gun-lax state, anyone found on the premises with a weapon would be assumed to be there to do harm and would be shot without question.  Even if he's sitting at a table eating dinner with his family and has a CCL.  Probably ought to shoot the rest of the family too, just for good measure, since they are with him and could be carrying too.

How's that for applying the Castle Doctrine?

Taxi drivers could become the biggest legally immune mass killers in history. Perhaps the film was a premonition.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #129 on: February 20, 2015, 09:58:22 AM »


If I were a business owner in some gun-lax state, anyone found on the premises with a weapon would be assumed to be there to do harm and would be shot without question.  Even if he's sitting at a table eating dinner with his family and has a CCL.  Probably ought to shoot the rest of the family too, just for good measure, since they are with him and could be carrying too.

How's that for applying the Castle Doctrine?


that is a pretty bad analogy,  in the business you were invited so the assumption that you are there to do harm is not evident in the same way as someone who kicks in your front door and enters an occupied house that is not theirs. 

By entering a business you have not deviated from social norms.  As such there is  no apparent threat until the gun is flashed, brandished or some other unusual behavior is evident.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 13131
  • Darwins +773/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #130 on: February 20, 2015, 11:37:11 AM »
that is a pretty bad analogy,  in the business you were invited so the assumption that you are there to do harm is not evident in the same way as someone who kicks in your front door and enters an occupied house that is not theirs. 

By entering a business you have not deviated from social norms.  As such there is  no apparent threat until the gun is flashed, brandished or some other unusual behavior is evident.

Entering a business that has "no weapons allowed" posted on the entrance, with a concealed (or open) weapon tells me you are up to no good and thus forfeit your right to not have your head shot off.  It is the same principle.

Part of the problem now is, if a gun guy is found carrying some place where it is not permitted, say, a mall, the legal repercussions are nil.  He is asked to leave, and that's it.  No fine.  No temporary suspension of his CCL.  No misdemeanor.  No nuthin'.  This is where a liberal application of the castle doctrine makes total sense.  Law abiding citizens know they are not allowed there with a gun, therefore, he can be assumed to be there for criminal intent.  Therefore, it is open season on anyone with a gun in places they are not permitted.  And it is safer to shoot first and ask questions later, since, who knows if he'll get some bright idea and to try to draw on you. 


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #131 on: February 20, 2015, 04:16:39 PM »
that is a pretty bad analogy,  in the business you were invited so the assumption that you are there to do harm is not evident in the same way as someone who kicks in your front door and enters an occupied house that is not theirs. 

By entering a business you have not deviated from social norms.  As such there is  no apparent threat until the gun is flashed, brandished or some other unusual behavior is evident.

Entering a business that has "no weapons allowed" posted on the entrance, with a concealed (or open) weapon tells me you are up to no good and thus forfeit your right to not have your head shot off.  It is the same principle.

Part of the problem now is, if a gun guy is found carrying some place where it is not permitted, say, a mall, the legal repercussions are nil.  He is asked to leave, and that's it.  No fine.  No temporary suspension of his CCL.  No misdemeanor.  No nuthin'.  This is where a liberal application of the castle doctrine makes total sense.  Law abiding citizens know they are not allowed there with a gun, therefore, he can be assumed to be there for criminal intent.  Therefore, it is open season on anyone with a gun in places they are not permitted.  And it is safer to shoot first and ask questions later, since, who knows if he'll get some bright idea and to try to draw on you.

Following that Mad Max-type logic, if you see (or think you see) a firearm on someone in a gun-free zone, you are perfectly justified in taking them out by any means necessary-- chair upside the head, fork in the neck, whatever.  Sometimes I suspect that some gun folks want some sort of societal breakdown scenario--all-out race war, post-nuclear holocaust, zombie apocalypse, etc-- so they can cut loose with their arsenals. Why else have so many and so much ammo if you never get to use it?[1]
 1. The Afrikaners in South Africa were preparing to go to glory with guns blazing, because they thought "the blacks" would come after them once apartheid was over. They were so disappointed when "the blacks" mainly wanted jobs, housing and educations like they said all along.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #132 on: February 23, 2015, 08:22:36 AM »
that is a pretty bad analogy,  in the business you were invited so the assumption that you are there to do harm is not evident in the same way as someone who kicks in your front door and enters an occupied house that is not theirs. 

By entering a business you have not deviated from social norms.  As such there is  no apparent threat until the gun is flashed, brandished or some other unusual behavior is evident.

Entering a business that has "no weapons allowed" posted on the entrance, with a concealed (or open) weapon tells me you are up to no good and thus forfeit your right to not have your head shot off.  It is the same principle.

Part of the problem now is, if a gun guy is found carrying some place where it is not permitted, say, a mall, the legal repercussions are nil.  He is asked to leave, and that's it.  No fine.  No temporary suspension of his CCL.  No misdemeanor.  No nuthin'.  This is where a liberal application of the castle doctrine makes total sense.  Law abiding citizens know they are not allowed there with a gun, therefore, he can be assumed to be there for criminal intent.  Therefore, it is open season on anyone with a gun in places they are not permitted.  And it is safer to shoot first and ask questions later, since, who knows if he'll get some bright idea and to try to draw on you.

Your analogy did not include that you establishment banned guns.  I still think you would be in serious trouble because simply put a reasonable man would not have concluded a guy eating dinner was up to no good. 

You could propose the castle doctrine as a defense but odds are you will go away for murder.  But I can clearly see how you would mistake the threat posed by a guy sitting at dinner in a restaurant who has a gun and someone breaking into your house at 3 AM  Clearly these are the exact same thing. 

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #133 on: February 23, 2015, 08:43:04 AM »
that is a pretty bad analogy,  in the business you were invited so the assumption that you are there to do harm is not evident in the same way as someone who kicks in your front door and enters an occupied house that is not theirs. 

By entering a business you have not deviated from social norms.  As such there is  no apparent threat until the gun is flashed, brandished or some other unusual behavior is evident.

Entering a business that has "no weapons allowed" posted on the entrance, with a concealed (or open) weapon tells me you are up to no good and thus forfeit your right to not have your head shot off.  It is the same principle.

Part of the problem now is, if a gun guy is found carrying some place where it is not permitted, say, a mall, the legal repercussions are nil.  He is asked to leave, and that's it.  No fine.  No temporary suspension of his CCL.  No misdemeanor.  No nuthin'.  This is where a liberal application of the castle doctrine makes total sense.  Law abiding citizens know they are not allowed there with a gun, therefore, he can be assumed to be there for criminal intent.  Therefore, it is open season on anyone with a gun in places they are not permitted.  And it is safer to shoot first and ask questions later, since, who knows if he'll get some bright idea and to try to draw on you.

Following that Mad Max-type logic, if you see (or think you see) a firearm on someone in a gun-free zone, you are perfectly justified in taking them out by any means necessary-- chair upside the head, fork in the neck, whatever.  Sometimes I suspect that some gun folks want some sort of societal breakdown scenario--all-out race war, post-nuclear holocaust, zombie apocalypse, etc-- so they can cut loose with their arsenals. Why else have so many and so much ammo if you never get to use it?[1]
 1. The Afrikaners in South Africa were preparing to go to glory with guns blazing, because they thought "the blacks" would come after them once apartheid was over. They were so disappointed when "the blacks" mainly wanted jobs, housing and educations like they said all along.


Why have so much ammo.  Well stockpiling ammo began a couple of years ago in earnest because ammo became scarce.  I am not exactly sure what happened but for like 5 years it has been impossible to buy ammo.  22 long rifle ammunition is just beginning to show up on the shelves again and lasts a whopping half hour after the shipment is put on the shelves. 

All ammunition has risen in price dramatically, conspiracies theories are abundant.  I am waiting for the right price to restock my lifetime of 22 long rifle ammo,  I would like to collect about 10,000 rounds.  So that the next time what ever happened to make ammunition so scares happens I wont need to worry about it.  I figure 10,000 rounds will cover my plinking needs for the foreseeable future.  Seeing as how I am not preparing for the zombie apocalypse  I am not willing to pay the insane prices so my stockpile is at 1,000 rounds and falling.

Why stockpile ammo?  Recent years have proven that  Price, availability can be manipulated severely intentionally or by market forces.   Threats of limits on ammo purchases have been bantered about by Pelosi  and other gun grabbing assholes.  Severe taxation on ammo has been toyed with by those writing laws.  I would like to buy a 20 to 30 year supply of ammo for each of my guns that will cover my chosen entertainment.

I used to frequently go to the range and blow of 500 rounds of 22 for sale price of $9.96 for a days shooting Now that price is somewhere around 100 dollars just 5 years later.  My 30/30 now costs around a dollar per shot I enjoy shooting 20 to 50 rounds with that gun. 

A day of shooting normally that would have cost me say 40 to 50 bucks now costs me 150 to 200 dollars if I don't buy in bulk.  I would be perfectly happy to buy ammo in small increments if I would not be raped to do it.  I don't really want to fill my closet up with a ton of ammo, but it is a way to economize.  If you found out shoe prices were going to increase 10 times would you possibly stock up on them.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5685
  • Darwins +670/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #134 on: February 23, 2015, 10:04:07 AM »
Your analogy did not include that you establishment banned guns.  I still think you would be in serious trouble because simply put a reasonable man would not have concluded a guy eating dinner was up to no good.
A guy bringing his gun into an eating establishment which clearly stated that guns were not allowed inside?  I think you had better rethink your definition of 'reasonable', if you think a reasonable man would not look very seriously askance at this.

Quote from: epidemic
You could propose the castle doctrine as a defense but odds are you will go away for murder.  But I can clearly see how you would mistake the threat posed by a guy sitting at dinner in a restaurant who has a gun and someone breaking into your house at 3 AM  Clearly these are the exact same thing.
And thus, the castle doctrine itself is badly flawed.  You don't consider it reasonable for a legitimate business owner to shoot someone who's breaking the law by entering an establishment which forbids guns, so why should it be reasonable to shoot someone who's breaking the law by entering your residence?  What the castle doctrine is intended to do is legalize a certain category of murder - that is, the right of a homeowner to commit murder against someone who entered their residence, whether or not that person represents a clear and present danger.  In short, screwtape's analogy is entirely apt, as it's the same thing from a different angle.  Instead of requiring that a person illegally inside a building (whether it's a residence or a business is irrelevant at this point) must represent a clear and present danger, they can be shot based on the possibility of them being dangerous.

That's what the castle doctrine truly means.  It's not about a homeowner being able to defend themselves from someone inside their home who means them harm, it's about them being able to shoot someone inside their home whether or not the person means them harm, based on mere suspicion.  And it's not something I can agree with.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 13131
  • Darwins +773/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #135 on: February 23, 2015, 03:40:37 PM »
Your analogy did not include that you establishment banned guns.  I still think you would be in serious trouble because simply put a reasonable man would not have concluded a guy eating dinner was up to no good. 

You could propose the castle doctrine as a defense but odds are you will go away for murder.  But I can clearly see how you would mistake the threat posed by a guy sitting at dinner in a restaurant who has a gun and someone breaking into your house at 3 AM  Clearly these are the exact same thing.

No, the analogy is sound.  You see,...wait.  What's that smell? 

Is it...?  Why, yes, it is.  It's hypocrisy.  Your post reeks of hypocrisy.  You want a double standard because you can see how absurd the castle doctrine is.  I am shocked.  Shocked.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #136 on: March 04, 2015, 09:10:48 AM »
Your analogy did not include that you establishment banned guns.  I still think you would be in serious trouble because simply put a reasonable man would not have concluded a guy eating dinner was up to no good. 

You could propose the castle doctrine as a defense but odds are you will go away for murder.  But I can clearly see how you would mistake the threat posed by a guy sitting at dinner in a restaurant who has a gun and someone breaking into your house at 3 AM  Clearly these are the exact same thing.

No, the analogy is sound.  You see,...wait.  What's that smell? 

Is it...?  Why, yes, it is.  It's hypocrisy.  Your post reeks of hypocrisy.  You want a double standard because you can see how absurd the castle doctrine is.  I am shocked.  Shocked.


Well if you consider different rules for two different situations with completely different evidence to be hypocrisy then you are using an unreasonable definition of hypocrisy. 

Yes I have criteria that must be theoretically met before killing someone.  Seeing someone scary who is not acting in a threatening manner is not enough evidence to kill them.  Seeing someone scary who has broken all social convention, forcibly entered my house without permission can be treated differently than a guy who looks scary in a public setting.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 09:12:31 AM by epidemic »

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7631
  • Darwins +1058/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #137 on: March 04, 2015, 11:43:49 AM »
^^^Depends on whether a private place of business, like a restaurant or a dry cleaners is also a public place. Is a movie theater a public place the same as a public park? Is your car, parked on the street, a public or private place? Is a bus or subway train a public or private place? Where is it appropriate to shoot someone who enters a space that you occupy, if you feel threatened?[1]

Some of this is semantics, I know, but it helps to be clear.
 1. I have been in some dangerous situations and lived in sketchy neighborhoods,and let me assure you that a lot of men would be dead if I had shot at people whenever I "felt threatened". As a young woman, any time a man walked too close up behind me on a dark street, I felt threatened. Men have touched me inappropriately on public transportation and that felt pretty damn threatening. I think many if not most women would agree.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #138 on: March 06, 2015, 11:10:01 AM »
^^^Depends on whether a private place of business, like a restaurant or a dry cleaners is also a public place. Is a movie theater a public place the same as a public park? Is your car, parked on the street, a public or private place? Is a bus or subway train a public or private place? Where is it appropriate to shoot someone who enters a space that you occupy, if you feel threatened?[1]

Some of this is semantics, I know, but it helps to be clear.
 1. I have been in some dangerous situations and lived in sketchy neighborhoods,and let me assure you that a lot of men would be dead if I had shot at people whenever I "felt threatened". As a young woman, any time a man walked too close up behind me on a dark street, I felt threatened. Men have touched me inappropriately on public transportation and that felt pretty damn threatening. I think many if not most women would agree.


OK is it considered right or acceptable for a stranger to:

Enter someone's house with out expressed permission? 
Enter someone's car without expressed permission?
Enter a restaurant without expressed permission?
Enter a dry cleaners without expressed permission?
...?


If someone enters your car without your permission while you are in it your are definitely within the realm of reasonable to assume they mean you harm.

If someone enters your restaurant without expressed permission this is business as usual.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1622
  • Darwins +122/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #139 on: March 06, 2015, 11:14:51 AM »


OK is it considered right or acceptable for a stranger to:

Enter someone's house with out expressed permission? 
Enter someone's car without expressed permission?
Enter a restaurant without expressed permission?
Enter a dry cleaners without expressed permission?
...?


If someone enters your car without your permission while you are in it your are definitely within the realm of reasonable to assume they mean you harm.

If someone enters your restaurant without expressed permission this is business as usual.

Is it ok for the postman[1] to walk up your driveway (which forms part of your property) without express permission?
 1. or woman

Online epidemic

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1268
  • Darwins +77/-23
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #140 on: March 06, 2015, 11:34:24 AM »
Is it ok for the postman[1] to walk up your driveway (which forms part of your property) without express permission?
 1. or woman

Is this legal, reasonable and customary in your city, state, country or culture?  Yes!  So yes he is allowed to do this.

Can he smash down your front door and enter your house?  No this is not legal, reasonable nor customary.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1622
  • Darwins +122/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: gun epidemic
« Reply #141 on: March 06, 2015, 11:53:18 AM »

Is this legal, reasonable and customary in your city, state, country or culture?  Yes!  So yes he is allowed to do this.

Can he smash down your front door and enter your house?  No this is not legal, reasonable nor customary.

And here we have it.

The postie has implied permission/consent to enter your property (your driveway is the same as your house in terms of property).
Is this implied permission irrevocable?
No it isn't. You can put a sign up saying "no entry, trespassers will be shot".

Do you have implied permission to enter a resturant?
Yes of course. As you say, this is business as usual.
Is this permission irrevocable?
No it isn't. You can put a sign up saying "no trainers/hoodies/guns".
Is it right or acceptable to enter a resturant where your implied permission to enter has been revoked.

No, a resturant/dry cleaners is, after all, private property as someone owns it.

If you enter a place where you are not allowed you are trespassing.

Someone who is trespassing in your private property can be removed, with whatever force you deem neccessary.

Screwtape can gun down anyone who is armed and walks into Chez Screwtape Patisserie as he has removed their implied permission and can only have evil intent as he clearly operates a no guns rule when selling buns.