|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2012 17:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Here's a suggestion. How about something along the lines of making the registered gun owner legally / criminally liable for any crimes committed with those weapons. If someone uses your gun to commit suicide, it's as if you murdered that person. If your gun is used in commission of a crime, such as bank robbery, you're on the hook. In the CT shooting case, clearly the mother is dead, and not going to be culpable, but perhaps she would have taken extra precaution to prevent her son's access in the first place and this never would have happened. Not to mention, I'm sure there would be at least some people who would decide not to own a gun because of the risk of being held responsible for its misuse.
Well, that's not fair to people that have their guns stolen.
I think if there was a graduating licensing system, it would work like this --
1) an experience gun owner or law enforcement officer gets certified to train and give out licenses for gun ownership.
2) the person attempting to earn a license has to be sponsored by this certified trainer as part of his application.
3) the instructor is not criminally liable, but subject to having his own gun license and certification taken away or suspended, if the person he sponsored commits some kind of violent crime with a gun.
That would be enough for an applicant to take his training very seriously, and an instructor to be very cautious of who he sponsored for licenses.
Criminal liability is too punitive. I mean, we don't hold parents accountable for their kid's fuck-ups, or teacher's for their students. I can't imagine holding gun owner liable for his buddy's fuck-up beyond taking his gun away.
|
On December 18 2012 17:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Here's a suggestion. How about something along the lines of making the registered gun owner legally / criminally liable for any crimes committed with those weapons. If someone uses your gun to commit suicide, it's as if you murdered that person. If your gun is used in commission of a crime, such as bank robbery, you're on the hook. In the CT shooting case, clearly the mother is dead, and not going to be culpable, but perhaps she would have taken extra precaution to prevent her son's access in the first place and this never would have happened. Not to mention, I'm sure there would be at least some people who would decide not to own a gun because of the risk of being held responsible for its misuse.
I agree that the mother should be held partially responsible, someone with mental problems should not have access to firearms. At the same time I feel that you should be able to trust your competent family members/loved ones with access to your firearms (where permits are not required) in case an emergency should arise.
Your plan doesn't hold a person responsible if their guns are taken by force or threat from them, and they report it to the authorities, right?
|
On December 18 2012 17:15 Consummate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 13:30 Nagano wrote:On December 18 2012 13:28 decado90 wrote:
Stricter gun laws will reduce the rate of mass shootings. That's an established fact. No it's not, do not make up facts. This right here is the problem I have with people sometimes. You clearly know nothing about the subject so I suggest you do the diligent thing here and read up the last 10 or so pages. Australia introduced strict firearm laws ever since a massacre where quite a few people were shot dead back in 1996. We haven't had a single killing spree with guns ever since. Totally, gun control doesn't change mass shootings. What's even funnier is that Australia has a drug problem as much as America, we had a shit load of firearms until they were banned and subsequently a lot of people used the buyback program. Obviously, there are criminals in Australia, so I really wonder what happened to the mass shootings if "criminals can obtain weapons easily" because the "war on drugs is ineffective." You can keep hiding behind your "America's situation is different" as much as you want whenever you can't refute a point.
One of the big problems with "the Gun issue" in America is that there is way too many guns in circulation to run an effective buyback program.
Not to say they shouldn't do something, but it would probably take decades to get most semi-automatic assault rifles off the streets if they banned them, for instance.
|
On December 18 2012 17:28 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Here's a suggestion. How about something along the lines of making the registered gun owner legally / criminally liable for any crimes committed with those weapons. If someone uses your gun to commit suicide, it's as if you murdered that person. If your gun is used in commission of a crime, such as bank robbery, you're on the hook. In the CT shooting case, clearly the mother is dead, and not going to be culpable, but perhaps she would have taken extra precaution to prevent her son's access in the first place and this never would have happened. Not to mention, I'm sure there would be at least some people who would decide not to own a gun because of the risk of being held responsible for its misuse. What if the gun was stolen though? If someone stole your car and then got in a wreck that killed people, you wouldn't be responsible for that. Obviously we can't just make it illegal to have a gun outside of a safe. I agree the mother is partly responsible for this, but trying to regulate something like this is impossible. It would take some extremely vague language regarding mental health and adults in your household, at the very least.
Not sure we can make the comparison between guns and cars. Whether people want more gun control, or some other alternative, nearly everyone wants to figure out a way to prevent what happened and has been happening at schools. If there was a rash of crimes involving crazy people mowing down kids at bus stops using cars across the country, there would be a different debate, but we haven't had that. So, we have to find an acceptable answer to prevent what has been happening.
I don't believe gun control is the answer because these shootings have been with weapons obtained from family members, who legally owned them, and generally handguns, which aren't going to be taken away in any sort of reasonable gun control. If we restrict someone's right to firearms if they have someone in their household who disqualifies them based on some list of mental illnesses they can throw into a law, then there would be incentive to not report borderline cases, as they would result in loss of gun rights. If, however, the gun owner was legally able to have the gun, but knew he would be held responsible if it was misused, then he has tremendous incentive to make damn sure his crazy nephew can't get that weapon. Theft of weapon followed by use in a crime is an issue, but I don't like the idea of simply reporting a weapon stolen to escape culpability. Perhaps requiring dis-assembly of the weapon when you're not home, with separate storage locations. Every gun owner knows that gun ownership is a tremendous responsibility. Taking certain extra steps to do everything we can to prevent these school shootings can be a sacrifice without any relinquishment of rights whatsoever.
|
On December 18 2012 17:33 Defacer wrote:
Criminal liability is too punitive. I mean, we don't hold parents accountable for their kid's fuck-ups, or teacher's for their students. I can't imagine holding gun owner liable for his buddy's fuck-up beyond taking his gun away.
We have big problems largely because people are not held responsible. I happen to think said problems would go down if parents were held responsible for more of what their children do.
|
Yeah, decades to get most of them off the streets to have a safe environment, compared to never getting them off and having an annual mass shooting.
In terms of protection, I don't see why guns are that great anyway, if anything, guns instigate violence rather than deters it. Killing in self defense is exactly that, killing. Think about a situation where no one has guns, if some dude pulled a knife on you and you disarmed them, are you likely going to stab them to death when they're down? No, because that is murder, not self defense. With guns, murdering the perpetrator IS self defense. That is the key difference. Just shooting them once isn't enough because they can still shoot back, that is why shooting for the kill is really the only effective self defense if both parties are armed.
Lets look at a typical robbery, if we are both armed with guns, what is the mentality of both parties? As the robber, I will think my victim will shoot me at any chance they have, so what am I more likely to do if I want to protect myself? I will fucking shoot them first. Same thing as the victim, I will shoot first too.
What if we both are armed with lets say, knives? If I pull a knife and tell them to give me their shit and they pull out a knife on me? I will fucking run, it's not worth the high likelihood of getting stabbed just to take their shit. No one dies in this situation, yet someone is going to die or atleast be seriously injured in the other. Sure, there will be times people get killed in the knife vs knife, but I would say it's much more unlikely than gun vs gun where shooting first is the best defense.
|
On December 18 2012 17:36 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:18 Kaitlin wrote:
Here's a suggestion. How about something along the lines of making the registered gun owner legally / criminally liable for any crimes committed with those weapons. If someone uses your gun to commit suicide, it's as if you murdered that person. If your gun is used in commission of a crime, such as bank robbery, you're on the hook. In the CT shooting case, clearly the mother is dead, and not going to be culpable, but perhaps she would have taken extra precaution to prevent her son's access in the first place and this never would have happened. Not to mention, I'm sure there would be at least some people who would decide not to own a gun because of the risk of being held responsible for its misuse. I agree that the mother should be held partially responsible, someone with mental problems should not have access to firearms. At the same time I feel that you should be able to trust your competent family members/loved ones with access to your firearms (where permits are not required) in case an emergency should arise. Your plan doesn't hold a person responsible if their guns are taken by force or threat from them, and they report it to the authorities, right?
I can understand a gun being stolen when you're not home. I made a suggestion for that type of situation. I wouldn't write an exception into the law about a gun being taken by force and reported to police. It could be a potential defense at trial, perhaps an affirmative one.
This is a serious matter, to which we really have no good solution. People are talking about gun control, which won't stop school shootings. People are talking about "being more vigilant" in identifying these people likely to commit such crimes. That's ridiculous. The impetus has to be on the gun owner, but in a way that is not infringing their rights. Gun ownership is a responsibility to be taken seriously. Think about this kid's mother. Do you think she would have made it so easy for her son to access her guns, knowing how he was, if she would have been criminally liable for his actions if he used her guns ? I think she would have kept them from him.
|
On December 18 2012 17:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:33 Defacer wrote:
Criminal liability is too punitive. I mean, we don't hold parents accountable for their kid's fuck-ups, or teacher's for their students. I can't imagine holding gun owner liable for his buddy's fuck-up beyond taking his gun away. We have big problems largely because people are not held responsible. I happen to think said problems would go down if parents were held responsible for more of what their children do.
Life is hard enough as it is. And you can try all you can to keep other people from making horrible mistakes, but being accountable for those too ... eehhhhhh I don't know.
I mean, I was a fucked up kid. Thankfully, I didn't do anything psychotic and eventually matured, but I was probably a chromosome away from being evil. And all my problems had very little to do with my saint of a mother.
So I guess I don't have a real argument, other than the idea that being criminal liable for other people's misdeeds, in general, is a very vague and very slippery slope (not to mention that it would unfairly discriminate against certain demographics).
|
On December 18 2012 18:04 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:53 Kaitlin wrote:On December 18 2012 17:33 Defacer wrote:
Criminal liability is too punitive. I mean, we don't hold parents accountable for their kid's fuck-ups, or teacher's for their students. I can't imagine holding gun owner liable for his buddy's fuck-up beyond taking his gun away. We have big problems largely because people are not held responsible. I happen to think said problems would go down if parents were held responsible for more of what their children do. Life is hard enough as it is. And you can try all you can to keep other people from making horrible mistakes, but being accountable for those too ... eehhhhhh I don't know. I mean, I was a fucked up kid. Thankfully, I didn't do anything psychotic and eventually matured, but I was probably a chromosome away from being evil. And all my problems had very little to do with my saint of a mother. So I guess I don't have a real argument, other than the idea that being criminal liable for other people's misdeeds, in general, is a very vague and very slippery slope (not to mention that it would unfairly discriminate against certain demographics).
My intent is to provide a "self-policing" mechanic where the guns are. Police aren't everywhere. Doctors aren't everywhere. But people who own guns know where their guns are. Family members know the emotional state of those close to them. What I am suggesting, while drastic, provides stiff incentive for self-policing. Putting real responsibility upon those who own guns to keep them away from dangerous people is the only idea that would have any effect on what's going on.
edit: Also, I'm not suggesting parents responsible for everything. Just the gun owner aspect. I do think parent's should be held more responsible for their children, but that's not at all part of this suggestion.
|
On December 18 2012 17:54 Consummate wrote:
In terms of protection, I don't see why guns are that great anyway, if anything, guns instigate violence rather than deters it. Killing in self defense is exactly that, killing. Think about a situation where no one has guns, if some dude pulled a knife on you and you disarmed them, are you likely going to stab them to death when they're down? No, because that is murder, not self defense. With guns, murdering the perpetrator IS self defense. That is the key difference. Just shooting them once isn't enough because they can still shoot back, that is why shooting for the kill is really the only effective self defense if both parties are armed.
Now that's fucking smart. Never thought of it that way before.
The most important factor when considering gun control is that it primarily offers the most extreme, singular form of self-defense, when the spectrum of danger and how we respond to it is actually quite broad. It's escalation-on-demand.
The notion that anyone 'needs' a gun and is therefore entitled to one is actually ridiculous, because it presumes that all threats are life-and-death-us-or-them situations.
I think that in Florida, the percentage of potential perpetrators that were armed with guns, that were killed (legally) by would-be victims was actually quite low. I should look it up.
|
On December 18 2012 18:17 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:54 Consummate wrote:
In terms of protection, I don't see why guns are that great anyway, if anything, guns instigate violence rather than deters it. Killing in self defense is exactly that, killing. Think about a situation where no one has guns, if some dude pulled a knife on you and you disarmed them, are you likely going to stab them to death when they're down? No, because that is murder, not self defense. With guns, murdering the perpetrator IS self defense. That is the key difference. Just shooting them once isn't enough because they can still shoot back, that is why shooting for the kill is really the only effective self defense if both parties are armed.
Now that's fucking smart. Never thought of it that way before. The most important factor when considering gun control is that it primarily offers the most extreme, singular form of self-defense, when the spectrum of danger and how we respond to it is actually quite broad. It's escalation-on-demand. The notion that anyone 'needs' a gun and is therefore entitled to one is actually ridiculous, because it presumes that all threats are life-and-death-us-or-them situations. I think that in Florida, the percentage of potential perpetrators that were armed with guns, that were killed (legally) by would-be victims was actually quite low. I should look it up.
You can blame some of the laws for that. Legally you cannot draw a gun on someone unless they present a perceived deadly threat and when you shoot, you cannot shoot to disable, you must shoot to kill because shooting to disable in the eyes of the law means you were not actually fearing for your life. This is made even worse with laws and sentencing laws which mean that if for some reason you are found to have not have been fearing for your life, you are treated as any other criminal.
|
One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut.
Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
|
On December 18 2012 18:17 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:54 Consummate wrote:
In terms of protection, I don't see why guns are that great anyway, if anything, guns instigate violence rather than deters it. Killing in self defense is exactly that, killing. Think about a situation where no one has guns, if some dude pulled a knife on you and you disarmed them, are you likely going to stab them to death when they're down? No, because that is murder, not self defense. With guns, murdering the perpetrator IS self defense. That is the key difference. Just shooting them once isn't enough because they can still shoot back, that is why shooting for the kill is really the only effective self defense if both parties are armed.
Now that's fucking smart. Never thought of it that way before. The most important factor when considering gun control is that it primarily offers the most extreme, singular form of self-defense, when the spectrum of danger and how we respond to it is actually quite broad. It's escalation-on-demand. The notion that anyone 'needs' a gun and is therefore entitled to one is actually ridiculous, because it presumes that all threats are life-and-death-us-or-them situations. I think that in Florida, the percentage of potential perpetrators that were armed with guns, that were killed (legally) by would-be victims was actually quite low. I should look it up.
But let's be real here if you break into someone's house are you entitled to your safety? Someone entering another persons home while they are home is incredibly dangerous and threatening without guns. I mean there is a massive difference between going into a home you know has no one in it vs. a house that definitely has people in it.
If you expect most homeowners to take a stab wound during a robbery is that fair to the home owner? What if that stab wound is the 1/10000 stab wound that nicks an artery and ends in a death. Should the home owner be at a realistic chance of his death to protect his family?
I don't expect the home owner to run out and just blow a shadowy figure away because that could be your child or much less likely it could be a plain old thief or even more massively unlikely the next BTK/Son of Sam. I think it is reasonable that the home owner should stay in his room and warn the intruder off and if the intruder continues up into the area with family members you should be able to shoot in self defence.
To ask a personal question, we both live in Canada so a robbery is a really small chance already but with a gun it is even less likely what would you do?
|
I feel sorry for Americans thinking that is necessary to possess a gun to protect themselves.
I've never seen a gun outside the pockets of a cop, which is how I want it to be. While I understand the need to protect one-self and family, a gun shouldn't be necessary to do so. Maybe in extreme cases, but extreme cases do not warrant the relaxed gun laws IMO.
That being said, maybe you guys live in what I perceive to be 'extreme cases', which only prompts my sympathy for you. Frankly I don't care if you have guns or not, but some of the reasons people give in this thread are ridiculous.
|
|
|
On December 18 2012 19:38 USvBleakill wrote:
One thing i always find "funny" (i know its not but...): After every school shooting or something like that everyone talks about "gun control". But here is the funny part: As far as i know there was a "Bushmaster AR 15"(please correct me if i´m wrong) used in Connecticut.
Thats not a gun. It´s a assault rifle designed from the beginning to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible.
How can politicans, weapon lobbyists and random people even sleep at night saying things like "it´s for hunting or to protect my family". Hunting what? Dinosaur? and protect them from what? Zombie kim jong ill?
looks like even pro-gun senator are pushing to ban Assault rifles now. It's sad that it took so many deaths to reach what most ppl (outside of the us) consider common sense.
Probly won't help much however consider you can buy weapons online without any background checks.
|
United States24569 Posts
What types of guns are likely to be banned? Any semi-automatic rifle? Just ones that look like the one used in the most recent mass shooting? Any rifle with a capacity >1?
If we are simply trying to ban assault weapons, should an M1 Garand, which is semi-automatic with an 8 bullet block (like a clip) be banned?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CFZiP.jpg)
|
its illegal to own guns in my country no matter what. It still does not stop the mass murders. We have the one of the highest murder rates per capital . There is not a single gun shop on the streets.
Point is, Gun control will solve nothing. There is nothing that can be done to prevent stuff like this happening. If its not a machine gun, it will be hunting rifle. If not a hunting rifle it will be via knife.
If they really want to stop this, you gotta have metal detectors in school and have alot more police on surveillance. This applies for everywhere you go. Not just schools.
Unless tax payers are willing to fork up the extra tax. Stuff like this will never stop happening. .
|
On December 19 2012 00:15 micronesia wrote:What types of guns are likely to be banned? Any semi-automatic rifle? Just ones that look like the one used in the most recent mass shooting? Any rifle with a capacity >1? If we are simply trying to ban assault weapons, should an M1 Garand, which is semi-automatic with an 8 bullet block (like a clip) be banned?
Here's another one we could throw out there, to see if it should be banned.
![[image loading]](http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/images/fgflLG.gif)
|
On December 19 2012 00:15 micronesia wrote:What types of guns are likely to be banned? Any semi-automatic rifle? Just ones that look like the one used in the most recent mass shooting? Any rifle with a capacity >1? If we are simply trying to ban assault weapons, should an M1 Garand, which is semi-automatic with an 8 bullet block (like a clip) be banned?
What's your opinion on this matter? Do you think there should be no restrictions at all on gun sales?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
