Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting
Options
Comments
-
You'll never eliminate guns, that horse has bolted.
In my opinion what they should do is:
- Mandatory registration of all guns which involves every person who registers going through:- a thorough background check (not just the box ticking exercise in many states)- sit through training (with refresher course every 3-5 years)- Random house inspections of those who hold guns to ensure they're being held securely
- Harsh fines for anyone carrying a gun that is not registered
- Harsh fines and jail time for someone who uses a gun that is not registered (even in legitimate circumstances)
- Matching sentences for parents if their children take their gun and use it in a shooting (exceptions for if the kid overpowers their parent)
- blanket ban on high powered automatic weapons
I obviously don't think the above will happen but even some would be a step in the right direction.
I actually don't think that owning a gun is always a bad thing but the freedom for practically anyone to own one and the idea that it's safer if everyone on the street can carry one around is sheer lunacy.
Registration serves no real purpose, the firearm is still out there
Background checks are by their nature cursory. It will not in the main reveal significant mental issues , unless you force everyone to under go psych evals ( that's an invasion privacy )
Random house checks again are difficult to perform without a warrant. There is no a priori evidence that security of the firearm has been breached. Equally you have the " right to bear arms ' Ie carry it about your person
You are actually suggesting conditions even more stringent then apply in Ireland !!
There is simply no point in " rules" that will fall at the first constitutional challenge0 -
Accidents you have a solid point in.
Suicides you really don't for a few reasons, from the point that people often substitute means to commit suicide so just taking one means away from them doesn't help; to the more pertinent point that when you do an apples-to-apples comparison and compare the US to the EU (as a whole), the US has the lower suicide rate and not by a negligible margin. The EU has a more diverse range of methods used so we don't see so many suicides by firearm as the US does; but we see more suicides overall so we can't exactly say the US is doing it wrong here, oddly enough.
Just because there is currently a lower rate of suicides does not mean that they could be further reduced by a stricter control on guns. I accept that it would not stop many of the suicides, a gun is probably the quickest and simplest methods so I believe removing it would cause an drop in the rates (absolutely no evidence for this).That may or may not be true when it comes to firearms homicides; but what is far more relevant is that the FBI and US DoJ statistics state categorically that the vast, vast majority of firearms homicides are linked to people with preexisting criminal records, rather than "ordinary people" who buy guns and kill people out of the blue after an argument over who ate the last roast potato at dinner.
It varies from place to place, but the estimates of how much gun homicide in the US is down to long-term criminals don't fall below 70% and are often above 90%. In some statistics, someone convicted of gun homicide is 22 times more likely to have had a criminal record leading up to the murder than to be someone who had a domestic argument and went for the gun (and honestly, we have those people too, it's why we have such a massive rate of sexual and physical violence in this country).
To look at your 'ordinary people', how many of the 'ordinary people' are murdered by these ex-cons? I'd propose that the majority of the ex-con who are committing murders are likely to be targeting other ex-cons. While 'ordinary people' are much more likely to be murdered by other 'ordinary people'.
The NRA and the right-wing media will continue to fearmonger that these ex-cons are coming to get them.0 -
You'll never eliminate guns, that horse has bolted.
In my opinion what they should do is:
- Mandatory registration of all guns which involves every person who registers going through:- a thorough background check (not just the box ticking exercise in many states)- sit through training (with refresher course every 3-5 years)- Random house inspections of those who hold guns to ensure they're being held securely
- Harsh fines for anyone carrying a gun that is not registered
- Harsh fines and jail time for someone who uses a gun that is not registered (even in legitimate circumstances)
- Matching sentences for parents if their children take their gun and use it in a shooting (exceptions for if the kid overpowers their parent)
- blanket ban on high powered automatic weapons
I obviously don't think the above will happen but even some would be a step in the right direction.
I actually don't think that owning a gun is always a bad thing but the freedom for practically anyone to own one and the idea that it's safer if everyone on the street can carry one around is sheer lunacy.
You'd be violating a few Amendments right off the bat there, so that would a non-flyer. Definitely the 4th and probably the spirit of the 2nd as well.
The realities of trying to implement such a system would quickly cause it collapse, purely from an administrative standpoint.
- What will constitute the correct training standards?
- Who will develop it and subsequently qualify others to teach it?
- What would be an adequate number of such trainers/ test centers per X number of citizens (think of the back log of people waiting to get their drivers test in Ireland) and at what point would a delay in testing be considered undue denial of a persons 2nd Amendment rights?
- Who is responsible for overseeing the standard of training?
- Would trainers be held responsible for actions of people who commit a crime subsequent to taking their test?
You could try and model it after the DMV set up, similar idea in many respects. However the infrastructure required would be significantly more burdensome, with respect to facilities for ranges and ammunition etc, and would likely be troublesome for those dwelling in urban centers, with the usual planning objections to ranges and the expense of an indoor set up.
You might say that this is all obfuscating, but if a proposal doesn't have a clear and workable plan for execution, it's apt to fail.0 -
Registration serves no real purpose, the firearm is still out there
You have a record of who owns the gun and where it is kept. It is necessary for the other ideas to work.Background checks are by their nature cursory. It will not in the main reveal significant mental issues , unless you force everyone to under go psych evals ( that's an invasion privacy )
For a recent job I had to take a background check which involved a lot information about myself, a drug test, and fingerprinting.
It's not an invasion of privacy if someone agrees to it in order to be able to own a gun.Random house checks again are difficult to perform without a warrant. There is no a priori evidence that security of the firearm has been breached. Equally you have the " right to bear arms ' Ie carry it about your person
Again by registering your firearm you're allowing the state to check on your gun.
You've the right to free speech but the supreme court has made several exceptions to it.
You don't have the right to carry it about your person, some states are very prohibitive (some having very similar rules that I'm suggesting before you can carry)You are actually suggesting conditions even more stringent then apply in Ireland !!
Can you get a hand gun in Ireland just because you want one? If not then it's not more stringent.There is simply no point in " rules" that will fall at the first constitutional challenge
An untimely death of one or two members of the conservative appointees and what's constitutional changes very quickly.
It's also important to note that research has found that states with stricter gun laws have a lower number of gun fatalities.0 -
Actually, it pretty much does make the findings invalid because of the FBI/DoJ statistics on gun crime levels when drug dealing is involved.Just because some of the respondents may have been involved in drug dealing does not make the findings invalid. Other research has shown that people are more aggressive and more paranoid when carrying a gun, which regularly escalates situations.0 -
Advertisement
-
You have a record of who owns the gun and where it is kept. It is necessary for the other ideas to work.
For a recent job I had to take a background check which involved a lot information about myself, a drug test, and fingerprinting.
It's not an invasion of privacy if someone agrees to it in order to be able to own a gun.
Again by registering your firearm you're allowing the state to check on your gun.
You've the right to free speech but the supreme court has made several exceptions to it.
You don't have the right to carry it about your person, some states are very prohibitive (some having very similar rules that I'm suggesting before you can carry)
Can you get a hand gun in Ireland just because you want one? If not then it's not more stringent.
An untimely death of one or two members of the conservative appointees and what's constitutional changes very quickly.
It's also important to note that research has found that states with stricter gun laws have a lower number of gun fatalities.
You have a ability to carry arms in virtually every state except Illinois and that's just changed I believe , most states are " shall license" . The 2008 SCOTUS judgement affirmed the right to bear arms and preventing carry , is open to challenge.
I'm not per se, suggesting your ideas are misplaced, but within the constitutional framework and current state laws are entirely hypothetical with zero chance of implementation
You can get 0.22 semi auto handguns in Ireland for the purpose of target shooting , you are not subject to anything more then a cursory background check and no random house inspections ( you may be inspected on license renewal )0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »You'd be violating a few Amendments right off the bat there, so that would a non-flyer. Definitely the 4th and probably the spirit of the 2nd as well.
The realities of trying to implement such a system would quickly cause it collapse, purely from an administrative standpoint.
- What will constitute the correct training standards? Many states already require you to go through training to get a carry permit
- Who will develop it and subsequently qualify others to teach it? As above
- What would be an adequate number of such trainers/ test centers per X number of citizens (think of the back log of people waiting to get their drivers test in Ireland) and at what point would a delay in testing be considered undue denial of a persons 2nd Amendment rights?Have a two year roll into it and by X date everyone needs to have gone through training. If people don't do it during the window it's on you. There's no right to quick arms. In the 6th amendment you have a right to a speedy tria and that can be a few months
- Who is responsible for overseeing the standard of training? They already do it
- Would trainers be held responsible for actions of people who commit a crime subsequent to taking their test?Of course not. A driving instructor is not responsible if their former student crashes unless there's extreme negligence
You could try and model it after the DMV set up, similar idea in many respects. However the infrastructure required would be significantly more burdensome, with respect to facilities for ranges and ammunition etc, and would likely be troublesome for those dwelling in urban centers, with the usual planning objections to ranges and the expense of an indoor set up.
You might say that this is all obfuscating, but if a proposal doesn't have a clear and workable plan for execution, it's apt to fail.
See above my responses to your points.
Regarding the 4th if people agree to it in advance then I dont think it would be an issue. There are exceptions to that amendment as well. They have a right to refuse but they then lose their right to hold a gun.
There would have to be a massive investment to make it work and execution that few government programs have but at this stage they need to do something.
Again I'm very aware that it would never happen.0 -
Last time I head of someone trying that, it was Canada and suicides by gun decreased by about the same amount that suicides by other means increased.Just because there is currently a lower rate of suicides does not mean that they could be further reduced by a stricter control on guns.
We do have ways to reduce suicides; denial of one method while not denying every other method is not one of those ways because it doesn't work.
Also, you're ignoring the point, which is that the level of suicide by firearm in the US is not necessarily an indicator that their firearms laws are broken because the level of suicide overall is lower than in comparable areas.
Propose away if you're bored, but if you want to know, go read the statistics because people went and actually found out.To look at your 'ordinary people', how many of the 'ordinary people' are murdered by these ex-cons? I'd propose that
(And the answer is "not many because they're mostly shooting each other").0 -
Which is the problem because that is not what you have. What you have is a list of who owned the gun when it was registered and where it was kept when it was registered.You have a record of who owns the gun and where it is kept. It is necessary for the other ideas to work.
That is not the same thing.
Also, you might want to look at the Canadian experience with registration, as well as the European experiences. It is not a panacea.
Hell, EU law specifically doesn't require registration for many firearms, nor licencing for most.
No, but it's also a bloody useless set of data to amass. I think you're falling prey to the CSI effect here.It's not an invasion of privacy if someone agrees to it in order to be able to own a gun.
No, only by allowing unwarranted searches in the form of surprise inspections would you be allowing that. Registration is an act of paperwork carried out in the past, not current information.Again by registering your firearm you're allowing the state to check on your gun.
Just because you want one, no, unless it's been deactivated. Just because you want to shoot one on a target shooting range, yes.Can you get a hand gun in Ireland just because you want one? If not then it's not more stringent.0 -
You have a ability to carry arms in virtually every state except Illinois and that's just changed I believe , most states are " shall license" . The 2008 SCOTUS judgement affirmed the right to bear arms and preventing carry , is open to challenge.
I'm not per se, suggesting your ideas are misplaced, but within the constitutional framework and current state laws are entirely hypothetical with zero chance of implementation
You can get 0.22 semi auto handguns in Ireland for the purpose of target shooting , you are not subject to anything more then a cursory background check and no random house inspections ( you may be inspected on license renewal )
I know there are several cases currently in the court over it but there are several states that are 'may issue' and even the 'shall issue' come with restrictions. All the restrictions have to be is to accept some/all of my plans.
In Ireland do you have to have to show evidence that it is to be used for target practice, undergo any training etc?0 -
Advertisement
-
See above my responses to your points.
Regarding the 4th if people agree to it in advance then I dont think it would be an issue. There are exceptions to that amendment as well. They have a right to refuse but they then lose their right to hold a gun.
There would have to be a massive investment to make it work and execution that few government programs have but at this stage they need to do something.
Again I'm very aware that it would never happen.
Those classes would be for a concealed carry license, you can still get a weapon without such, it just takes longer. That's quite a difference from saying you can't get a gun at all unless you take a class. Also, the quality varies greatly, there would need to be a homogeneous system in place on a Federal level under your proposal.
The idea of home inspections gets fairly problematic when you consider the size of the country and the number of firearms per person. If you imagine a situation whereby you have a total buy in of owners to your system, consider how many inspectors you would be required to employ to accomplish these inspections. There is also the problem of going into peoples homes and potentially witnessing illegal acts. Would this person have the ability to report people to law enforcement? Would evidence of such illegal actions be admissible in a court?0 -
Last time I head of someone trying that, it was Canada and suicides by gun decreased by about the same amount that suicides by other means increased.
We do have ways to reduce suicides; denial of one method while not denying every other method is not one of those ways because it doesn't work.
Also, you're ignoring the point, which is that the level of suicide by firearm in the US is not necessarily an indicator that their firearms laws are broken because the level of suicide overall is lower than in comparable areas.
Propose away if you're bored, but if you want to know, go read the statistics because people went and actually found out.
(And the answer is "not many because they're mostly shooting each other").
Then what is the need for 'ordinary people' to arm themselves to the teeth in fear? If the bad guys with the guns are mostly shooting each other and having a gun in the home makes your whole family more likely to die then why have it aside from some delusion of protection?0 -
Then what is the need for 'ordinary people' to arm themselves to the teeth in fear? If the bad guys with the guns are mostly shooting each other and having a gun in the home makes your whole family more likely to die then why have it aside from some delusion of protection?
It's hardly a delusion of protection to be able to stop a criminal from inflicting his will upon you or your family. Not to mention the whole protect yourself from the tyranny of an oppressive government piece.0 -
I know there are several cases currently in the court over it but there are several states that are 'may issue' and even the 'shall issue' come with restrictions. All the restrictions have to be is to accept some/all of my plans.
In Ireland do you have to have to show evidence that it is to be used for target practice, undergo any training etc?
To the last line. Yes and somewhat yes ( there is no formal training per se) But it's more to show good reason then to specifically met any specific legal requirements. The " good reason" issue has been the subject of multiple court cases here as it can be terribly subjective
Comparisons with here any way can only be taken so far , we have tremendous restrictions on use and type.
In the us , gun law or lack of it, stems from the constitutional guarantee , the right to bear arms in self defence , in Ireland that is not a reason to own a firearm ( and rightly so here )0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »It's hardly a delusion of protection to be able to stop a criminal from inflicting his will upon you or your family. Not to mention the whole protect yourself from the tyranny of an oppressive government piece.
Yes, and I'll argue the other side of the coin. In reality the tyranny argument is nonsense. When the constitution was written , the oppressive gov had muskets , you had muskets , Today the oppressive gov has tanks, fighter jets and missiles , you have a slightly more updated " musket " . Right that'll work.
The home protection issue is actually primary paranoia. Most people firing a handgun in a panic , will miss , the likelihood is the assailant is more familiar with using his gun in anger and will not hesitate. Short of providing home owners with military training , the gun as a defensive weapon has more " perceived " defensive value then in reality. It's really a self defense " security blanket ". Anyone who fires handguns in a target shooting situation knows how difficult it is to hit anything.0 -
Which is the problem because that is not what you have. What you have is a list of who owned the gun when it was registered and where it was kept when it was registered.
That is not the same thing.
Also, you might want to look at the Canadian experience with registration, as well as the European experiences. It is not a panacea.
Hell, EU law specifically doesn't require registration for many firearms, nor licencing for most.
Then make them have to register movement of address of where their gun is held, any sales etc. Hell, I'm over in the States on a visa and I have to register any change of address but who cares about the location of few million guns.
I'd put a fair bet on EU law changing if there was as many deaths as there is in the States.No, but it's also a bloody useless set of data to amass. I think you're falling prey to the CSI effect here.
Again if companies do these sort of checks to weed out employees then I don't understand the push back or insistence that it cant be done for guns.No, only by allowing unwarranted searches in the form of surprise inspections would you be allowing that. Registration is an act of paperwork carried out in the past, not current information.
I thought it was clear that my registration is not the same as previous incarnations of it. If anything this is more of a licence than a registration.0 -
Just because some of the respondents may have been involved in drug dealing does not make the findings invalid. Other research has shown that people are more aggressive and more paranoid when carrying a gun, which regularly escalates situations.
Yet the records show that those who legally carry their weapons are substantially more law-abiding in general than the population as a whole. If they were getting aggressive and committing road rage incidents or whatever, then that would be reflected in either criminal charges, or at least rescinding of their weapons license. It doesn't happen. So, yes, maybe someone in the thug culture of the local gang may be even more aggressive if he's got a Glock in his waistband, but the typical people who go through the licensing process are not, as evidenced by the police's records. At least, they do not succumb to the aggression.Again by registering your firearm you're allowing the state to check on your gun.
The US doesn't take many things more seriously than the 2nd, but both left and right get very irritated when the 4th gets involved. One should not have to choose which Constitutional right is more important. We're angry enough about the government collecting basic metadata from telephone calls, how do you think we'll react when we say 'the police have the right to enter your home'?You've the right to free speech but the supreme court has made several exceptions to it.
Yes, but not many. Constitutional issues are decided by the US courts on the bases of one of three standards of scrutiny. Strict, Intermediate, and Rational Basis. The First Amendment is dealt with under "Strict Scrutiny" for "what you can say", and "Intermediate Scrutiny" for "where you can say it". Strict Scrutiny is reserved for fundamental rights. The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the result the government is looking for, the law must be the least intrusive method possible for achieving the result, and the result must be a compelling government interest. "Intermediate scrutiny" laws must be shown to be "important" to the government, and "substantially related" to the government's interest. Rational Basis can effectively be described as "Well, the law is related to something the government would be reasonably interested in."
The Supreme Court has stated that the right to a firearm in the house is a fundamental right. The right to carry a fiream outside the house has not been elaborated upon, but the court did expressly state that "rational basis" would be insufficient. (The Constitutional scholars are actually having fun with this one, as some courts have developed a new 'heighted rational basis' level in order to deal with the question). The 4th Amendment (protection from unreasonable search) is also a heightened standard of scrutiny.
In other words, there is no way that 'We know you have a gun, so we can come into your house and check on it' is going to pass any Constitutional muster.You don't have the right to carry it about your person, some states are very prohibitive (some having very similar rules that I'm suggesting before you can carry)
Actually, you do, in the US. This was affirmed in the 7th Circuit last year when it struck down the last total ban in the country. (That was the Illinois case which Boatmad referred to. Illinois is now 'shall issue'.) The courts are currently split, however, as to what limitations can be placed upon that right. The current universal position is that there must be some process available for the average citizen to apply to be armed. We're still awaiting some court rulings on this one (9th Circuit is next in the 'chute), but the chances are that this is going back to the Supreme Court as there is already a circuit split.It's also important to note that research has found that states with stricter gun laws have a lower number of gun fatalities.
Sortof.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/08/crossfire-fact-checking-claims-about-guns/But Garen Wintemute, director of the University of California-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, pointed out that the correlation between restrictive laws and fewer deaths "essentially disappeared" when firearm ownership rates were taken into account.
"Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low — there will be less opposition to them — and firearm ownership confounds the association."0 -
Yes, and I'll argue the other side of the coin. In reality the tyranny argument is nonsense. When the constitution was written , the oppressive gov had muskets , you had muskets , Today the oppressive gov has tanks, fighter jets and missiles , you have a slightly more updated " musket " . Right that'll work.
The home protection issue is actually primary paranoia. Most people firing a handgun in a panic , will miss , the likelihood is the assailant is more familiar with using his gun in anger and will not hesitate. Short of providing home owners with military training , the gun as a defensive weapon has more " perceived " defensive value then in reality. It's really a self defense " security blanket ". Anyone who fires handguns in a target shooting situation knows how difficult it is to hit anything.
I would turn your last point on its head. The perceived protection of an armed home owner is a strong deterrent to armed invasion, as pointed out previously in the thread by Manic, in reference to the levels of burglary when occupants were present versus when they were absent.
Fundamentally, you are asking that people place their faith in the hope that they won't be confronted by an armed intruder or armed aggressor versus allowing them the option to avail themselves of tools to defend themselves. It places an uneven and inequitable burden on the part of the law abiding citizen relative to that of the criminal. I can't see any society where that would be considered an acceptable proposition.
As to your first point re: the disparity in armament of the government against that of the citizenry, you are certainly correct. However, as a cursory examination of history would show, that does not guarantee the that the government would be successful. Syria being a most recent and visible example of this.0 -
Yes, and I'll argue the other side of the coin. In reality the tyranny argument is nonsense. When the constitution was written , the oppressive gov had muskets , you had muskets , Today the oppressive gov has tanks, fighter jets and missiles , you have a slightly more updated " musket " . Right that'll work.
As I've pointed out before, I've basically lost two years of my life because folks armed primarily with AK-47s and whatever home-made bombs they could come up with were doing a fairly good job of keeping the US military busy for the last ten years. Don't underestimate a motivated insurrection with reasonable personal weapons. I grant you, however, that for most people, this is an ancillary reason. Not unimportant, just not commonly thought about.The home protection issue is actually primary paranoia. Most people firing a handgun in a panic , will miss , the likelihood is the assailant is more familiar with using his gun in anger and will not hesitate. Short of providing home owners with military training , the gun as a defensive weapon has more " perceived " defensive value then in reality. It's really a self defense " security blanket ". Anyone who fires handguns in a target shooting situation knows how difficult it is to hit anything.
This is true. Yet it is also true that the objective is not to kill the other guy, but to survive the encounter and end the event. Driving them away will work just as well. Most criminals are not interested in getting into a protracted gunfight. It's just not worth the risk to them. There are certainly ample videos of incidents (usually in shops, as that's where the cameras are) of armed citizens engaging armed criminals, and the response is all but invariably that the criminals leg it. So the 'perception' is true, but it works on -both- parts of the equation, the firearm achieves its intended purpose.
[Deleted erroneous info]0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Yet the records show that those who legally carry their weapons are substantially more law-abiding in general than the population as a whole. If they were getting aggressive and committing road rage incidents or whatever, then that would be reflected in either criminal charges, or at least rescinding of their weapons license. It doesn't happen. So, yes, maybe someone in the thug culture of the local gang may be even more aggressive if he's got a Glock in his waistband, but the typical people who go through the licensing process are not, as evidenced by the police's records. At least, they do not succumb to the aggression.
But what brought me into this debate was the desire to have more people carrying weapons to lower the chances of similar shootings. Maybe it is the case that those who currently go to the effort to legally carry are more law abiding but research prove the aggression and paranoia links.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xhp/38/5/1159/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16866740The US doesn't take many things more seriously than the 2nd, but both left and right get very irritated when the 4th gets involved. One should not have to choose which Constitutional right is more important. We're angry enough about the government collecting basic metadata from telephone calls, how do you think we'll react when we say 'the police have the right to enter your home'?
Yes, but not many. Constitutional issues are decided by the US courts on the bases of one of three standards of scrutiny. Strict, Intermediate, and Rational Basis. The First Amendment is dealt with under "Strict Scrutiny" for "what you can say", and "Intermediate Scrutiny" for "where you can say it". Strict Scrutiny is reserved for fundamental rights. The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve the result the government is looking for, the law must be the least intrusive method possible for achieving the result, and the result must be a compelling government interest. "Intermediate scrutiny" laws must be shown to be "important" to the government, and "substantially related" to the government's interest. Rational Basis can effectively be described as "Well, the law is related to something the government would be reasonably interested in."
The Supreme Court has stated that the right to a firearm in the house is a fundamental right. The right to carry a fiream outside the house has not been elaborated upon, but the court did expressly state that "rational basis" would be insufficient. The 4th Amendment (protection from unreasonable search) is also a heightened standard of scrutiny.
In other words, there is no way that 'We know you have a gun, so we can come into your house and check on it' is going to pass any Constitutional muster.
I've accepted that all my plans wouldn't happen. I don't believe they are necessarily unconstitutional but a lot wouldnt have a chance with the current supreme court.Actually, you do, in the US. This was affirmed in the 7th Circuit last year when it struck down the last total ban in the country. The courts are currently split, however, as to what limitations can be placed upon that right. The current universal position is that there must be some process available for the average citizen to apply to be armed. We're still awaiting some court rulings on this one (9th Circuit is next in the 'chute), but the chances are that this is going back to the Supreme Court as there is already a circuit split.
Ok until further notice you have the right but not the ability.0 -
Advertisement
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »I would turn your last point on its head. The perceived protection of an armed home owner is a strong deterrent to armed invasion, as pointed out previously in the thread by Manic, in reference to the levels of burglary when occupants were present versus when they were absent.
Fundamentally, you are asking that people place their faith in the hope that they won't be confronted by an armed intruder or armed aggressor versus allowing them the option to avail themselves of tools to defend themselves. It places an uneven and inequitable burden on the part of the law abiding citizen relative to that of the criminal. I can't see any society where that would be considered an acceptable proposition.
As to your first point re: the disparity in armament of the government against that of the citizenry, you are certainly correct. However, as a cursory examination of history would show, that does not guarantee the that the government would be successful. Syria being a most recent and visible example of this.
But you're putting your faith in the people being able to defend their home against criminals who are likely more used to holding and discharging firearms. The result of that will be an escalation that could have fatal consequences for the gun owner. Not only is it useless in this situation but it also opens them to all the associated risks within their home.
You cannot compare the arms the Syrian military have and the American government. Also, you're comparing a dictator who is involved in mass murder to a US President who is called a tyrant for bringing in an affordable healthcare act. There are plenty of checks and balances in the US to stop any actual government tyranny.0 -
But you're putting your faith in the people being able to defend their home against criminals who are likely more used to holding and discharging firearms. The result of that will be an escalation that could have fatal consequences for the gun owner. Not only is it useless in this situation but it also opens them to all the associated risks within their home.
You cannot compare the arms the Syrian military have and the American government. Also, you're comparing a dictator who is involved in mass murder to a US President who is called a tyrant for bringing in an affordable healthcare act. There are plenty of checks and balances in the US to stop any actual government tyranny.
I would put faith in the citizen to make an attempt to defend himself. Anyone who has spent the money to purchase a firearm is likely to have spent the money to fire it also. Any scenario beyond that is unpredictable but I would still rather preserve the ability to meet an intruder with every tool available to me. I'm not in the habit of placing a person's life on the theoretical good whims of a criminal.
As the past decade has shown, a comparatively poorly armed citizenry can prove a most resolute and intractable foe to a regular force with superior weapons. The 2nd Amendment is there to provide the US citizen the ability to resist the oppression of a potential tyrannical government. It is one of the very checks and balances you made reference to.0 -
But you're putting your faith in the people being able to defend their home against criminals who are likely more used to holding and discharging firearms. The result of that will be an escalation that could have fatal consequences for the gun owner. Not only is it useless in this situation but it also opens them to all the associated risks within their home.
I strongly suspect that criminal types are not usually proficient with their weapon either. however, is that not a judgement call for the individual to make when deciding upon a security strategy? I'm pretty good with a pistol according to my qualification records on the combat pistol course. And I've been in firefights, so I know how I react to them. Why shouldn't it be my choice to believe that the potential risks are outweighed by the benefits? Granted, I'm less typical than most, but the point is that some people are as capable of analyzing the problem and concluding "you know, it's not for me." If so, good for them. Maybe they have a large dog. Why remove that decision-making ability?You cannot compare the arms the Syrian military have and the American government. Also, you're comparing a dictator who is involved in mass murder to a US President who is called a tyrant for bringing in an affordable healthcare act. There are plenty of checks and balances in the US to stop any actual government tyranny.
Yes, and most of the time they work. Firearms are one last check or balance. Which I'm happy to say I don't believe any body of the population has found it necessary to resort to in seven decades. But, it's a nice guarantor.
That first psych link was an interesting one, by the way, thanks for that. Makes sense, too, if you think about it.0 -
You can get 0.22 semi auto handguns in Ireland for the purpose of target shooting , you are not subject to anything more then a cursory background check and no random house inspections ( you may be inspected on license renewal )
This isn't actually correct - the Gardai can and do carry out random inspections.
I think you might find that not everyone over there would regard that as a trivial thing.All the restrictions have to be is to accept some/all of my plans.
Yes; proof of membership of the range is required as is proof of competence (but that competence can be proven in ways other than through training and the law provided no standards for such training).In Ireland do you have to have to show evidence that it is to be used for target practice, undergo any training etc?
Well, you answered your own question there at the end, but just to point out that the statistics don't say everyone there is armed, but that something like 30-35% of households have firearms.Then what is the need for 'ordinary people' to arm themselves to the teeth in fear?
I believe the Afghans have disproven your thesis to three major armies now, the British, the Russian and the Americans. And I think we disproved it to the British ourselves back when they were a superpower. That's the nature of asymmetric warfare.Yes, and I'll argue the other side of the coin. In reality the tyranny argument is nonsense. When the constitution was written , the oppressive gov had muskets , you had muskets , Today the oppressive gov has tanks, fighter jets and missiles , you have a slightly more updated " musket " . Right that'll work.
I don't happen to like that particular aspect of their belief in their right to own firearms, but history doesn't permit its simple hand-wavey dismissal.
That might be why all the states that allow concealed carry seem to require some degree of training before granting the permit for it.The home protection issue is actually primary paranoia. Most people firing a handgun in a panic , will miss , the likelihood is the assailant is more familiar with using his gun in anger and will not hesitate. Short of providing home owners with military training , the gun as a defensive weapon has more " perceived " defensive value then in reality.
Also, your argument does rather hinge on the american in question deliberately not practicing. That's not a good argument; they quite like going to shooting ranges and practicing. Companies make a lot of money selling them the consumables used for oractice.
It's not that hard. I wouldn't ever want to do it to another human being; but that's because I don't want to hurt people, not because it's technically difficult. At the kind of ranges you get inside a house, it's a point-and-click sort of thing.Anyone who fires handguns in a target shooting situation knows how difficult it is to hit anything.
I think you'd find they wouldn't like that, and again, unless you have surprise inspections, you just have paperwork, you don't have data. And their constitution bans such inspections.Then make them...
Precisely. You're not a citizen.Hell, I'm over in the States on a visa and I have to register any change of address
Unlikely. Driving through a change in a single, rather odd country like ours is hard. In the UK it took the conjunction of one of the worst mass shootings in european history with the election that saw one of the more scruple-free and skilled political leaders go for prime minister. In other countries it hasn't happened. And EU law has to pursuade all the member nations to accept change, not one or two. Not to mention, all the mass shootings in the EU to date have been against EU law and writing a second law against them isn't going to make them "more illegal". You want to stop those things, you have to enforce the law you have, not write more words on a piece of paper the criminals don't bother to read.I'd put a fair bet on EU law changing if there was as many deaths as there is in the States.
Because there is and there always should be a very very very very wide gap between what a private company can do with the people who choose of their own free will to join it, and what the state can do to everyone regardless of their choices (and for the record, even what the private companies do is regulated as well because we all prefer to read Dickens over living Dickens). If your employer tomorrow demanded your fingerprints for example, they would be subject to a rather large pointy chunk of law governing the protection of sensitive data; and frankly, they'd probably wind up in court if they tried to enforce it over objections.Again if companies do these sort of checks to weed out employees then I don't understand the push back or insistence that it cant be done for guns.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »I would put faith in the citizen to make an attempt to defend himself. Anyone who has spent the money to purchase a firearm is likely to have spent the money to fire it also. Any scenario beyond that is unpredictable but I would still rather preserve the ability to meet an intruder with every tool available to me. I'm not in the habit of placing a person's life on the theoretical good whims of a criminal.
As the past decade has shown, a comparatively poorly armed citizenry can prove a most resolute and intractable foe to a regular force with superior weapons. The 2nd Amendment is there to provide the US citizen the ability to resist the oppression of a potential tyrannical government. It is one of the very checks and balances you made reference to.
To draw comparisons with Syria is nonsense. The rebels were heavily armed from a variety of nearby states before ISIL arrived
How long you think they will hold out now that both the us and Russia are bombing then.
The defence against tyranny thing is pure 18tb century nonsense. Anyway from Ireland to Pakistan, when " citizens " need small arms, for a little rebellion , there's never any issue in acquiring them.
In Europe armed burglary is rare outside criminal on criminal events. Hence you will have the expectation that confrontation is unlikely to be fatal.
However let me state that I am personally in favour of allowing certain restrictive armed defence of ones curtilage And I sympathise with the situation that rural dwellers in Ireland find them selves in. At least here in Ireland, farmers are typically armed. I do not support any form of " carry" law or public place defense , that's the polices job.0 -
[Because there is and there always should be a very very very very wide gap between what a private company can do with the people who choose of their own free will to join it, and what the state can do to everyone regardless of their choices (and for the record, even what the private companies do is regulated as well because we all prefer to read Dickens over living Dickens). If your employer tomorrow demanded your fingerprints for example, they would be subject to a rather large pointy chunk of law governing the protection of sensitive data; and frankly, they'd probably wind up in court if they tried to enforce it over objections./QUOTE]
Correct. And here there is little back ground checks an employer could do without your express permission, the fact is , if you have the right to bear arms , you would equally have the right to not be forced to provide access to private data , unless there was a priori , some indication of need to do so.
My view is any attempt to introduce wide scale invasive background checks , would not succeed a constitutional challenge0 -
Don't tell the swiss! Or the finns. Or any nation that keeps a, what do you call them, "reserve" defence force?The defence against tyranny thing is pure 18tb century nonsense.
:P
And if you fly, airline crashes are very rare, and if you're an american mass shootings are something you're astonishingly unlikely to be involved in (yes, there are lots of them; but there are lots and lots of americans. Your average american is in far more danger from cars than guns). If you want to use statistics as an argument, that's fantastic, data-based arguments are the only ones worth thinking about - but you have to face the data head-on, you can't take small chunks of it.In Europe armed burglary is rare outside criminal on criminal events. Hence you will have the expectation that confrontation is unlikely to be fatal.
Not for self-defence; the law does not permit the holding of firearms in Ireland for purposes of self-defence and it's several years in prison if you fake paperwork by saying it's for something other than what you use it for.At least here in Ireland, farmers are typically armed.
Actually, I can't think of a single country in the world where the police force is routinely held legally liable for failing to prevent a crime that injured someone. They're supposed to enforce the law, not prevent crimes from happening. In other words, their job - outside of some exceptions which you're not talking about here - doesn't kick in until after the fact.I do not support any form of " carry" law or public place defense , that's the polices job.
Personally, I like living in a country where a stout door and a good set of locks is "good enough", but americans for many reasons don't live in such a country. I can think of vast swathes of that country where I wouldn't go for a walk in the woods without carrying a rifle, for example, and where putting out your rubbish wrong could lead to a 400lb bear showing up in your back yard. And that's before you start thinking about other people. Just because it won't happen in a Manhattan or San Francisco apartment isn't enough reason to change a law that will also apply to a home in the country in Alaska or Washington or wherever.0 -
Don't tell the swiss! Or the finns. Or any nation that keeps a, what do you call them, "reserve" defence force?
:P
not for the purposes of defeating a tryannical governmentsAnd if you fly, airline crashes are very rare, and if you're an american mass shootings are something you're astonishingly unlikely to be involved in (yes, there are lots of them; but there are lots and lots of americans. Your average american is in far more danger from cars than guns). If you want to use statistics as an argument, that's fantastic, data-based arguments are the only ones worth thinking about - but you have to face the data head-on, you can't take small chunks of it.
you prove my pointNot for self-defence; the law does not permit the holding of firearms in Ireland for purposes of self-defence and it's several years in prison if you fake paperwork by saying it's for something other than what you use it for.
I never said that , I said many are armed , and certainly by a recent straw pool at the meetings about rural crime, the vast majority would consider using their legally held firearm to defend themselves. As a shooter my self I am acutely aware of the law in ireland .Actually, I can't think of a single country in the world where the police force is routinely held legally liable for failing to prevent a crime that injured someone. They're supposed to enforce the law, not prevent crimes from happening. In other words, their job - outside of some exceptions which you're not talking about here - doesn't kick in until after the fact.
I never said they were liable, it is their job though, liability is a legal connotation , if a police force was" liable" you could sue them , hence they do not enter into SLAs etc !!!
evidence from rural crime would suggest you are very wrong herePersonally, I like living in a country where a stout door and a good set of locks is "good enough",but americans for many reasons don't live in such a country. I can think of vast swathes of that country where I wouldn't go for a walk in the woods without carrying a rifle, for example, and where putting out your rubbish wrong could lead to a 400lb bear showing up in your back yard.
true but a different argumentAnd that's before you start thinking about other people. Just because it won't happen in a Manhattan or San Francisco apartment isn't enough reason to change a law that will also apply to a home in the country in Alaska or Washington or wherever.
historically in the US it was the case, large urban centres like Washington DC had handgun bans for example, yet the " bears" there are no less ferocious0 -
I have to say I haven't come across the "a 400lb bear might show up" argument from a gun-lobbyist before.I can think of vast swathes of that country where I wouldn't go for a walk in the woods without carrying a rifle, for example, and where putting out your rubbish wrong could lead to a 400lb bear showing up in your back yard. And that's before you start thinking about other people. Just because it won't happen in a Manhattan or San Francisco apartment isn't enough reason to change a law that will also apply to a home in the country in Alaska or Washington or wherever.
No doubt the increased risk of gun-related injury or death universally observed for people who keep a gun in their house probably increases still further for people who are out and about with a loaded weapon and the willingness to use it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, that's precisely why. Just not the government of that particular country. Which is one of the major fundamental differences between EU and US gun culture, incidentally - here the historical roots of a lot of target shooting (and we're talking hundreds of years back don't forget) was to train armies in peacetime. In the US, it wasn't.not for the purposes of defeating a tryannical governments
Actually, I was negating it. You might want to reread that.you prove my point
Excellent; then you know well the difference between having a firearm for self-defence and using one in extremis under our legal system.I never said that , I said many are armed , and certainly by a recent straw pool at the meetings about rural crime, the vast majority would consider using their legally held firearm to defend themselves. As a shooter my self I am acutely aware of the law in ireland .
And you know better than to toss around silly comments like that as though you were the front page of this morning's tabloids, because you also know that stuff like that is what our TDs latch onto while ignoring facts, right up to where they'll show you a UK road sign and say it was shot with an Irish legally-held firearm...
And that's precisely the argument the americans make; that since you can't get the police into an SLA, they want to do it themselves. They're a bit insistent on it. It's also precisely the same sentiment you just mentioned in your last paragraph...I never said they were liable, it is their job though, liability is a legal connotation , if a police force was" liable" you could sue them , hence they do not enter into SLAs etc !!!
I don't live in a rural area. Where I live, a stout door is good enough. And that's why I live there. But I'm lucky, I get to choose that location.evidence from rural crime would suggest you are very wrong here
Actually, no, it's not; when they talk about self-defence with firearms, the argument is usually over using them to defend from people because that's the most contentious; but in really large parts of the US, things like bears and cougars are a real and genuine threat and you go wandering around the woods in the northern states unarmed at your peril.true but a different argument
Not Washington DC, Washington State - other side of the country butting up against the Canadian border.historically in the US it was the case, large urban centres like Washington DC had handgun bans for example, yet the " bears" there are no less ferocious0
Advertisement