Gun control in the USA

jank · 13-01-2013 12:05AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think the UK government exerts too much control you are going to love the Australian one. Not.

You seem to assume apart from yourself no Irish have never left our little island - ironic then that so many like myself left due to the lack of civil liberties in Ireland and fled to the sanctuary of the UK.

Apart from that - your post is nothing but whataboutery.

Did I say anything positive about the Australia federal government, so whats your point apart from having the need to comment on nothing, just to be involved?
The rest of your post proves my point exactly!

jank · 13-01-2013 12:14AM

MadsL wrote: »

I await the 'stick' legislation next when some gobsh1te beats someone to death with a pimp cane.

Do you have no interest in protecting personal civil liberties?

As far as I can see, athiests have no interest in civil liberties what so ever unless it has to do with religion, then of course all bets are off.

They would love to see a world where guns as well as religion was banned from soceity and have some state organisation carry out such enforcement for the 'good of the people', much like Cambodia under the Khmer rouge I suspect!

They cant fathom that the idea that gun ownership is in fact a civil liberty issue. Just a quick peak at 20th century history will give an insight why governments don't want a well armed civilian population. Case in point, why this thread still grows daily in this very forum.

Atheist-ism is a lack of belief in god....so what in flying ****s does this have to do with gun control!!:pac: Do be a stereotype!

jank · 13-01-2013 12:19AM

robindch wrote: »

Still, it does kind of disprove the NRA's weird notion that the best solution to gun crime is more guns.

Eh, no it doesnt.

Bannasidhe · 13-01-2013 12:33AM

jank wrote: »

Did I say anything positive about the Australia federal government, so whats your point apart from having the need to comment on nothing, just to be involved?
The rest of your post proves my point exactly!

Have you not moved from NZ to OZ then?

Bannasidhe · 13-01-2013 12:35AM

jank wrote: »

As far as I can see, athiests have no interest in civil liberties what so ever unless it has to do with religion, then of course all bets are off.

They would love to see a world where guns as well as religion was banned from soceity and have some state organisation carry out such enforcement for the 'good of the people', much like Cambodia under the Khmer rouge I suspect!

They cant fathom that the idea that gun ownership is in fact a civil liberty issue. Just a quick peak at 20th century history will give an insight why governments don't want a well armed civilian population. Case in point, why this thread still grows daily in this very forum.

Atheist-ism is a lack of belief in god....so what in flying ****s does this have to do with gun control!!:pac: Do be a stereotype!

Not being shot by some dick with a grudge against whatever who goes home and picks up a few legally held weapons and goes on a killing spree is a civil liberty I would prefer to see enforced

robindch · 13-01-2013 12:37AM

jank wrote: »

As far as I can see, athiests [...] would love to see a world where guns as well as religion was banned from soceity and have some state organisation carry out such enforcement for the 'good of the people', much like Cambodia under the Khmer rouge I suspect!

Still finishing off the last of the eggnog, eh?

jank wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Still, it does kind of disprove the NRA's weird notion that the best solution to gun crime is more guns.

Eh, no it doesnt.

Perhaps Ratliff should have surrounded himself with some of MadSL's apples?

He could have had someone's eye out with one of them!

robindch · 13-01-2013 12:49AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not being shot by some dick [...]

But, but, you're balancing your right not to have your kid shot in the head against a against a right conferred by a deliberate mis-reading of a constitutional amendment which specifies a condition which no longer applies and which, in any case, may not have been enacted had the guys who wrote it known about things like automatic and semi-automatic weapons and events like the Aurora and Newtown massacres.

As Gopnick says at the start of this thread:

Adam Gopnik wrote:

The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns [...] is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

stevejazzx · 13-01-2013 01:09AM

jank wrote: »

They would love to see a world where guns as well as religion was banned from soceity and have some state organisation carry out such enforcement for the 'good of the people', much like Cambodia under the Khmer rouge I suspect!

Yeah this current world of religion and guns is doing so much for us eh?
Well no matter what terrorism is caused by religious fundamentalists or killing sprees caused by too many guns and a gun culture - we'll have our civil liberties right? And then at least our fearful and paranoid yet heavily armed civillian population will be able to fight off the government? Is it just me or do a lot of people in the pro-gun camp seem angry and afraid? I can get sympathise with that but thinking a right (and as robin pointed out the landscape of what that right was created for has dramatically changed) to bear arms is going to help when the government decides to enslave its own people only proves my earlier point about fear and gun culture. You are not protecting yourself against anything you are only helping to create an atmosphere of distrust. Having to be ready to murder someone or die yourself in any given situation is something we should be moving away from as a society, not towards.

Manic Moran · 13-01-2013 01:24AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All laws are essentially discretionary and dependent on whether or not you get an unreasonable legislator though. So you haven't really avoided that problem.

Which would you prefer? No-one allowed any knives, or everyone allowed any knives?

Not really.

Most laws around here are not discretionary. The police and prosecutor may have discretion on whether or not to pursue something, but that doesn't mean that the law itself is discretionary.

For example, I am pulled over for speeding. I'm doing 60 in a 55 zone. There is no discretion as to whether or not I have broken the law. I have.
The policeman, however, may use his discretion as to whether or not to give me a ticket. If he doesn't, then I'm happy. If he does, I'm not exactly in a position to complain about it.

There are some cases currently going through the California legal system revolving around the legality of certain firearms. Police and prosecutors both have proven unable to reliably ascertain descriptive facts on certain rifles, and arrested owners of Evil Black Rifles for breaking the assault weapons ban. Despite the fact that the law specifies the mechanics of it, they looked evil and arrestable. After having the case thrown out by the judge, one guy got arrested again for the same perceived offense only a few weeks later by a different department. (That civil case resulting is Richard v Harris: Richard is now sueing the State for being unable to follow its own laws)

It is nice that there is no discretion in the law. No matter how much the City Attorney in San Francisco dislikes guns, I am confident that as long as my weapon meets certain specific criteria which are laid out in writing in legislation, I -cannot- be convicted, not 'should not' be convicted. I don't need to explain why I have the gun. I don't need to explain why it's not a threat to anyone. It is legal, end of story. If an individual policeman or prosecutor disagrees with me, that's his problem, and need not be a possible concern of mine.

NTM

MadsL · 13-01-2013 06:58AM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yeah this current world of religion and guns is doing so much for us eh?

I'll ask you again why you feel the need to drag religion into something which is a fundamentally a secular debate.

Well no matter what terrorism is caused by religious fundamentalists

Huh? When did we start talking about terrorism? You really do not want to open that debate as numbers killed by terrorism on Irish soil are far in excess of any spree killings in the US, despite Irish gun laws.

or killing sprees caused by too many guns and a gun culture

Ah. I see you have figured out the causes of killing sprees in the US. Tell me, what causes them in Europe then?

- we'll have our civil liberties right?

Actually Irish civil liberties are being eroded daily because you do not have a bill of rights. Don't believe me? Which part of the world is facing having its internet censored and newspapers claiming its links are copyright.

And then at least our fearful and paranoid yet heavily armed civillian population will be able to fight off the government?

"fearful and paranoid" - nice non-emotive words to bring to the debate. What did you base that on?

Is it just me or do a lot of people in the pro-gun camp seem angry and afraid?

As I said before "pro-gun" is as useful as "pro-life" in an abortion debate. Could you find a way to describe the position that isn't so cartoonish? As to angry and afraid I think you are projecting or watching too much Alex Jones.

I can get sympathise with that but thinking a right (and as robin pointed out the landscape of what that right was created for has dramatically changed) to bear arms is going to help when the government decides to enslave its own people only proves my earlier point about fear and gun culture.

What point? you keep throwing words about without basis in fact. That is as useful as me calling your position "cowardly and passive" it is just namecalling, I thought we were attempting to debate this?

You are not protecting yourself against anything you are only helping to create an atmosphere of distrust.

Of the two cultures I highlighted, the US is the one that trusts its citizens with weapons, the UK does not and actively searches its citizens without probable cause, then prosecutes them for fear of the damage they MAY do, not their actual actions. One of those is an atmosphere of distrust, and it ain't the US.

Having to be ready to murder someone or die yourself in any given situation is something we should be moving away from as a society, not towards.

How very pious. The US has been dropping murder rates steadily - In 2011, the U.S. murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest since 1963. If you ant to criticize you might want to do it on a factual basis, but then you have steadily been avoiding actual facts since you started posting in this thread.

robindch wrote: »

Still finishing off the last of the eggnog, eh?Perhaps Ratliff should have surrounded himself with some of MadSL's apples?

He could have had someone's eye out with one of them!

Do you have anything useful at all to contribute to this thread? You might remember you mod this forum, and yet you have been less than constructive right through this thread. Nice standard of discussion you are setting with your silly snideness, trolling and word games. I find it ironic that the contributions of the mod actually make me less inclined to post in this forum.

robindch · 13-01-2013 10:38AM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Is it just me or do a lot of people in the pro-gun camp seem angry and afraid?

Here's a guy named James Yeager who created a stir last Wednesday when he announced that, if Obama pressed ahead with any gun reform, Yeager would begin "killing people". In fact, he'd be "glad" to start a "civil war". Yeager also calls for other "patriots" to arm themselves and prepare for war too:

Mr Yeager wrote:

Vice President Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control, Fuck that. I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight. I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.

A shitstorm ensued and Yeager reissued his first video with the threat to start killing people edited out. On Thursday, he issued a second video in which he addresses the floor, whlie stating that people shouldn't commit any felonies or murder anybody "unless necessary" (it's not necessary "yet"). He also mentions that he's "accidentally assembled" a "quite formidable" army.

Here are the two videos (the first one is the unedited one):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9sMv9mcdc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

robindch · 13-01-2013 10:47AM

A Fox News commentator, formerly a senior judge in New Jersey, reminds people that what the Second Amendment actually does is protect the right to murder people:

Mr Napolitano wrote:

Here’s the dirty little secret about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was not written in order to protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government. How ‘bout chewing on that one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpYTzvY1ZFs

stevejazzx · 13-01-2013 12:46PM

MadsL wrote: »

I'll ask you again why you feel the need to drag religion into something which is a fundamentally a secular debate.

I'm not
I did initially bring it up all my myself, granted.
Then you asked me to qualify my statement re: NRA and religion - so in my reply I tried to qualify my initial statement.
And in the above instance I was replying to Jank s point. So I've mentioned religion independently once in this whole thing?

Huh? When did we start talking about terrorism? You really do not want to open that debate as numbers killed by terrorism on Irish soil are far in excess of any spree killings in the US, despite Irish gun laws.

Again I was responding to Jank?

Ah. I see you have figured out the causes of killing sprees in the US. Tell me, what causes them in Europe then?

I genuinely don't understand what you are asking me for here. Is this a trick question or something?

Actually Irish civil liberties are being eroded daily because you do not have a bill of rights. Don't believe me? Which part of the world is facing having its internet censored and newspapers claiming its links are copyright.

Actually in terms of the interweb Ireland has ordered Facebook to increase the privacy of its users.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b3e027a8-2be2-11e1-98bc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HqwtkJZu
Something which is actively helping increase civil liberties. I think Ireland is a bad example.
Newspapers wanting link commission - I don't understand how this erodes civil liberties?

"fearful and paranoid" - nice non-emotive words to bring to the debate. What did you base that on?

As I said before "pro-gun" is as useful as "pro-life" in an abortion debate. Could you find a way to describe the position that isn't so cartoonish? As to angry and afraid I think you are projecting or watching too much Alex Jones.

Please watch Robins video above - that guy, without over doing it, is terrifying.

What point? you keep throwing words about without basis in fact. That is as useful as me calling your position "cowardly and passive" it is just namecalling, I thought we were attempting to debate this?

There's no namecalling?
In relation to the point it was about gun culture and fear. I have gone over it in my last two replies to you.

Of the two cultures I highlighted, the US is the one that trusts its citizens with weapons, the UK does not and actively searches its citizens without probable cause, then prosecutes them for fear of the damage they MAY do, not their actual actions. One of those is an atmosphere of distrust, and it ain't the US.

I don't think a right to bear arms is exclusively an issue of trust. It's also about general safety. In the same that you don't leave a hot pan in the middle of a busy kitchen. People shouldn't leave guns lying around their homes but they do.

How very pious. The US has been dropping murder rates steadily - In 2011, the U.S. murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest since 1963. If you ant to criticize you might want to do it on a factual basis, but then you have steadily been avoiding actual facts since you started posting in this thread.

Pious?
Perhaps you are picking me up all wrong.
My only wish is for enlightenment of societies and less violence.

On your statistics however it is still the highest from comparable wealtly countries and it seems that states with at least one firearm law in place are doing better since 2007 on - see below graph so this would suggest that gun regulation does work

the-gun-loving-states-of-louisiana-alabama-arkansas-and-mississippi-had-more-deaths-due-to-gun-related-injuries-in-2007-than-most-of-the-country.jpg

the-gun-loving-states-of-louisiana-alabama-arkansas-and-mississippi-had-more-deaths-due-to-gun-related-injuries-in-2007-than-most-of-the-country.jpg

Should we not forget the reality of guns however
2011

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2013 01:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

Or you could have a bill of rights that protects a persons right to defend themselves, prevents random searches without probable cause and doesn't require police to arrest someone effectively for something they may do. the entire methodology in the UK is to assume that someone is up to no good despite innocent explanation.

So now you carry a knife to defend yourself?
Isn't that reacting to something other people may do, something you say the police in the UK shouldn't?

MadsL wrote: »

If you want a stark contrast, I can strap on a holstered gun, walk about downtown and claim my 2nd Amendment rights and if a officer wishes to challenge that, I can assert my 4th and 5th Amendment rights. Why? Because the basic assumption is that I am law-abiding until proved otherwise.

Unless you don't have a license to own said gun. Or a permit to carry said gun (which many states will only give you if you can show good cause to want to carry said gun).

MadsL wrote: »

Contrast that with a society that detains its citizens, and runs metal detectors over them and searches them in vast numbers [] without requiring any consent nor probable cause

You have just described every single airport in America.

MadsL wrote: »

Because the only possible explanation for having a knife in public is that you mean others harm, and in the UK possession without explanation is prosecuted as thoughtcrime.

If you have a penknife for use with your oboe, then you have an explanation for it.

MadsL wrote: »

This runs to the heart of the debate: In the UK, the people have become so desensitized to the erosion of civil liberties that the next step is to start monitoring every citizens's email, text and phone call. Think that's crazy?

No, I think that is a slippery slope fallacy. The UK may have privacy issues, but the laws against carrying knives do not inherently lead to laws on monitoring every citizens every electronic communication.

MadsL wrote: »

The basis of the law is to punish wrongdoing as a consequence of actions, not some imagined intent.

Which has always been a failing of the law IMO. An attempted crime, or intended crime shouldn't not get less punishment than an actual crime. Punishment should not be based on how well a crime was planned, if it can be shown that you intended to do something, you should be punished as if you did do it. As I said to Manic Moran, the problem you describe is one of police or prosecutors being unable to interpret a law practically, not a problem with the law itself. Such cretins will interpret any law poorly, you need to get rid of them, not just the specific law that you disagree with because it effects you.

MadsL wrote: »

Now that the UK has slid into some kind of Orwellian nightmare where even a butter knife may be regarded as suspicious,

I would find any knife suspicious, if the holder cannot give a reasonable reasons for carrying it. It was only a day or two ago that a 16 year old was stabbed in the back with a bread knife in an unprovoked attack in Drogheda.

Mark Hamill · 13-01-2013 01:44PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not really.

Most laws around here are not discretionary. The police and prosecutor may have discretion on whether or not to pursue something, but that doesn't mean that the law itself is discretionary.

You misunderstand me, I didn't police or prosecutor, I said legislator. All laws are discretionary, to some extend, to the wording the legislator uses when the law is originally worded. If you somehow turn all police and prosecutes into robots who have zero discretion on how to interpret the law, they are still subject to how the law was written in the first place.

The problem with laws being only discretionary to the original legislator is what happens 10, 20, or 50 years down the line? Environments change, technology changes. Laws are usually very, very slow to change, and they can only be changed by a bureaucratic level of government several degrees above that of street walking police or courtroom prosecutor (ie people you can directly interact with). Is it really better to be subject to a law that can only be re-evaluated by someone who you will almost certainly never be able to meet, and therefore never have a chance to explain your pragmatic innocence, and who even if convinced, will be unable to enact change on a time scale that will ever help you?

The funny thing about your examples is they show how much better it is to have somewhat discretionary laws. By the time you hit the courts, if you are pragmatically innocent, you should (and will, it would seem) be able to convince someone, be it the police, the prosecutors or the judge. The problem your examples show is of those who weren't convinced not learning from their mistakes, which is an argument to getting rid of them, not changing the law.

MadsL · 13-01-2013 06:05PM

robindch wrote: »

Here's a guy named James Yeager

..and what? He's a nut job.

Once again you show yourself in your true colours, finding any piece of craziness to sling at your opposition.

Mudslinging, pure and simple. I expect better of you, and once again you disappoint.

MadsL · 13-01-2013 06:18PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So now you carry a knife to defend yourself?
Isn't that reacting to something other people may do, something you say the police in the UK shouldn't?

What level of personal self defence item do you consider acceptable? Bunch of keys? Pen?

Unless you don't have a license to own said gun. Or a permit to carry said gun (which many states will only give you if you can show good cause to want to carry said gun).

No licence required in my state (NM) and Open Carry is permitted (just very rare) the right to self-defence is enshrined in my states constitution. Only 7 states prevent open carry, oddly given its history Texas is one of them.

You have just described every single airport in America.

Air travel is by consent is it not? And that is pretty much every airport in the world. Name me another country that runs random metal detector searches on its citizens on the streets of its capital city.

If you have a penknife for use with your oboe, then you have an explanation for it.

Judging by news reports of what happens in the UK, you will be arrested if your oboe is not with you, and it will be a difficult charge to beat, leaving you with a criminal record.

No, I think that is a slippery slope fallacy. The UK may have privacy issues, but the laws against carrying knives do not inherently lead to laws on monitoring every citizens every electronic communication.

Not directly. But the UKs insistance on enacting laws like stop and search that violate probable cause mean that they find it easier to enact other laws that ignore probable cause. I'm baffled why the UK doesn't see the 4th Amendment as a good piece of law to have on statute.

Which has always been a failing of the law IMO. An attempted crime, or intended crime shouldn't not get less punishment than an actual crime. Punishment should not be based on how well a crime was planned, if it can be shown that you intended to do something, you should be punished as if you did do it. As I said to Manic Moran, the problem you describe is one of police or prosecutors being unable to interpret a law practically, not a problem with the law itself. Such cretins will interpret any law poorly, you need to get rid of them, not just the specific law that you disagree with because it effects you.

What would be your gold standard of proof for intent? Especially when it relates to penknife crime?

I would find any knife suspicious, if the holder cannot give a reasonable reasons for carrying it. It was only a day or two ago that a 16 year old was stabbed in the back with a bread knife in an unprovoked attack in Drogheda.

Are you calling for controls on bread knives? If not why not?
If you feel any knife is suspicious, why, until recently was it acceptable for 9 year old boys to have one as part of their Scouting uniform?

Manic Moran · 13-01-2013 08:13PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm not
On your statistics however it is still the highest from comparable wealtly countries and it seems that states with at least one firearm law in place are doing better since 2007 on - see below graph so this would suggest that gun regulation does work

Extremely dodgy graph.

Firsltly, the lines indicate "at least one firearms law designed to protect children", but the colours indicate overall deaths by firearm, apparently with no correlation to age or circumstance.

Secondly, the colours are a little off. Blue lines on a yellow background give a green impression. Blue lines on a red background still seem sortof reddish. Looking carefully, for example, you will see that California is yellow (one step in) and blue, whilst Nevada right next to it is red (one step in) and blue. Diametric opposites, but California 'looks' particularly good while NV doesn't 'look' particularly better. Most of the lined States seem to be right in the middle if I look closely.

Thirdly, it doesn't concern the effect of the law. California's child protection law, for example, makes it an offense to leave a firearm around where a kid can reach it and the kid then commits an offence with it. It does not make it an offense to leave a firearm around where a kid can reach it. Indeed, it specifically states that kids can use such firearms to shoot people if necessary. Quite how much of an effect that law has in practice is debateable since the law only kicks in if the firearm is misused.

robindch · 14-01-2013 12:04AM

MadsL wrote: »

Once again you show yourself in your true colours, finding any piece of craziness to sling at your opposition.

Not really - just pointing out that the news channel most trusted by right-wingers is telling its combustible, ignorant viewers that the Second Amendment permits citizens to start murdering the nation's civil administration and that -- shock, horror! -- some skinhead nutjob from Tennessee announces that he's prepared to start murdering people, that he's inadvertently assembled an army and that he would be "glad" to start a civil war against the same national administration.

I don't think that's "any piece of craziness". Here in Ireland, and no doubt in most countries, that would count as treason and it's not altogether clear to me why Mr Yeager has not been detained and charged appropriately.

Although I do note that he's had his concealed weapon permit revoked. Let's hope he doesn't stick to his word and start murdering people like he said he would.

Mark Hamill · 14-01-2013 01:37AM

MadsL wrote: »

What level of personal self defence item do you consider acceptable? Bunch of keys? Pen?

Why do you need any? Why do you assume you will need one? Why do you assume that the possible assailant wont assume you are carrying a weapon and so arm himself?

MadsL wrote: »

Air travel is by consent is it not? And that is pretty much every airport in the world. Name me another country that runs random metal detector searches on its citizens on the streets of its capital city.

Road travel is also by consent.

MadsL wrote: »

Judging by news reports of what happens in the UK, you will be arrested if your oboe is not with you, and it will be a difficult charge to beat, leaving you with a criminal record.

Really? A handful of daily mail articles doesn't really support this assertion, the daily mail is basically the UK version of Fox, its not at all reliable as an indicator of real life in the UK. A lot of people use knives in their daily lives, you would expect epidemic levels of incidences.

MadsL wrote: »

Not directly. But the UKs insistance on enacting laws like stop and search that violate probable cause mean that they find it easier to enact other laws that ignore probable cause. I'm baffled why the UK doesn't see the 4th Amendment as a good piece of law to have on statute.

This is just a reassertion of the slippery slope argument. If you haven't broken any law, then you have nothing to worry about from stop and search laws.

MadsL wrote: »

What would be your gold standard of proof for intent? Especially when it relates to penknife crime?

Well not being willing to state a reason for carrying a knife would probably indicate that you probably have an illegal use in mind.

MadsL wrote: »

Are you calling for controls on bread knives? If not why not?
If you feel any knife is suspicious, why, until recently was it acceptable for 9 year old boys to have one as part of their Scouting uniform?

I don't need to call for controls, they exist. You shouldn't carry a knife unless you have good reason to. If you don't have good reason, then you don't need to carry the knife, so whats the problem?

MadsL · 14-01-2013 04:21AM

robindch wrote: »

A Fox News commentator, formerly a senior judge in New Jersey, reminds people that what the Second Amendment actually does is protect the right to murder people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpYTzvY1ZFs

Except that that is a parody of what he actually said. Now if you have any intellectual integrity left you might stop letting your absolute obsession with the American far-right making you put words into people's mouths.

If you consider the right to bear arms is the right "to murder people" then I guess arming cops is giving them the right "to murder people". Out of interest, are you a pacifist? Or do you agree with the principal of justifiable homicide?

I find it hilarious that someone from a country with a history of violent uprising against "tyrants" is concerned that someone points out the history of an amendment of the US Constitution was formed to prevent the tyranny of Government. The birth of your own nation was formed of violenT revolution and civil war withing living memory was it not?

MadsL · 14-01-2013 05:13AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you need any? Why do you assume you will need one? Why do you assume that the possible assailant wont assume you are carrying a weapon and so arm himself?

Personal choice in the matter is protected by US law, and the individual assumed to be of honorable intent unless it can be proven otherwise. By contrast UK and Irish law assumes that those prepared to defend themselves are automatically guilty of an offence unless they can somehow convince the courts of an alternative use for their defensive weapon. Such a law perverts the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I note that UK law has even removed the globally applied concept of the 5th Amendment and allowed courts to infer guilt from silence.

Road travel is also by consent.

What? Walking down a public street opens you up for random searches? What next, random home inspections by the police to counteract cannabis factories?

Really? A handful of daily mail articles doesn't really support this assertion, the daily mail is basically the UK version of Fox, its not at all reliable as an indicator of real life in the UK. A lot of people use knives in their daily lives, you would expect epidemic levels of incidences.

I hate quoting the Daily Mail as much as Fox, but are the facts of these arrests untrue in some way, despite where they are reported. Do you think a man who had a penknife for picnics in his car deserves a criminal record. US law widely defines a vehicle as part of your home, and anything within that vehicle and extension of your own property/land. This man did not even have the penknife out of his vehicle or even in plain view.

This is just a reassertion of the slippery slope argument. If you haven't broken any law, then you have nothing to worry about from stop and search laws.

Ah, I see you have fallen for the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" school of let's search everyone just in case. What a horrible state of affairs when the assumption is that those who are prepared to protect themselves (girls carrying pepper spray for instance) are somehow a threat to society. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument because the erosion of assumed innocence in the UK has gone from where a 9 year old carrying a scouting knife to camp is now a criminal.

Well not being willing to state a reason for carrying a knife would probably indicate that you probably have an illegal use in mind.

Sorry, why the blue blazes should you have to give a reason??? Failure to say anything = guilt? What a perverted state of affairs. Innocent until proven guilty, not in the UK.

I don't need to call for controls, they exist. You shouldn't carry a knife unless you have good reason to. If you don't have good reason, then you don't need to carry the knife, so whats the problem?

I seem to remember when I was in the Scouts, my knife was used mostly for whittling wood, would that be a "good reason"?

The heart of this is a society, the UK, where people are fundamentally treated as tending towards evil, and hence civil liberties are secondary to the control of the 'evil' in society. By contrast US society sees people fundamentally tending towards good and contributing towards the improvement of society - the allowance of US society for the carrying of arms by its people is made on the basis that civilian arms help to police society and that the majority of legally held arms are a positive measure towards a less, not more violent society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/dec/18/uk-bill-of-rights-commission

The chairman of the commission, Sir Leigh Lewis, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office and Department for Work and Pensions, sided with the majority. He said: "Our current human rights structures do not enjoy great public support and ownership and are seen very much as someone else's creation [from abroad ]."

robindch · 14-01-2013 12:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

Except that that is a parody of what he actually said. Now if you have any intellectual integrity left you might stop letting your absolute obsession with the American far-right making you put words into people's mouths.

The legal definition of "murder" is "premeditated, unlawful killing".

Mr Napolitano tells his viewers that the second amendment is a "right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government". This shooting clearly requires premeditation and, since no law exists by which members of the duly-elected civil administration can be legally executed by members of the public, it's therefore unlawful too.

Therefore, it's "murder".

MadsL wrote: »

I find it hilarious that someone from a country with a history of violent uprising against "tyrants" is concerned that someone points out the history of an amendment of the US Constitution was formed to prevent the tyranny of Government.

If you read the second amendment carefully, you'll find it's there to help ensure the "security of a free State", not to allow members of the public to execute, as they wish, members of the duly-elected civil administration.

Mark Hamill · 14-01-2013 03:16PM

MadsL wrote: »

Personal choice in the matter is protected by US law, and the individual assumed to be of honorable intent unless it can be proven otherwise. By contrast UK and Irish law assumes that those prepared to defend themselves are automatically guilty of an offence unless they can somehow convince the courts of an alternative use for their defensive weapon. Such a law perverts the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

Doesn't the desire to carry around a gun or knife for self defence pervert the concept of innocent until proven guilty? You are assuming that everyone else is potentially guilty.

MadsL wrote: »

I note that UK law has even removed the globally applied concept of the 5th Amendment and allowed courts to infer guilt from silence.

Despite what the US may like to think, its Amendments don't apply globally.
Why exactly shouldn't guilt be implied from silence? Why the innocent stay silent?

MadsL wrote: »

What? Walking down a public street opens you up for random searches? What next, random home inspections by the police to counteract cannabis factories?

Another slippery slope argument.

MadsL wrote: »

I hate quoting the Daily Mail as much as Fox, but are the facts of these arrests untrue in some way, despite where they are reported. Do you think a man who had a penknife for picnics in his car deserves a criminal record. US law widely defines a vehicle as part of your home, and anything within that vehicle and extension of your own property/land. This man did not even have the penknife out of his vehicle or even in plain view.

The problem is that you don't know what is being left out of the Daily Mail articles. For instance the article you quoted about the guy who said he had a small pen knife for cutting fruit. The Daily Mail said that was his good reason for having it, but his lawyer admitted that that in court he had said he had no good reason. Such poor reporting calls into questioning all of their reports on this subject. Its not like they haven't outright lied in articles before, just look at any of their previous anti-vaccine work.

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, I see you have fallen for the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" school of let's search everyone just in case. What a horrible state of affairs when the assumption is that those who are prepared to protect themselves (girls carrying pepper spray for instance) are somehow a threat to society. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument because the erosion of assumed innocence in the UK has gone from where a 9 year old carrying a scouting knife to camp is now a criminal.

If its against the law to carry knives or pepper spray then they are criminals. You may not agree with it, but that is a direct, non discretionary reading of the law. If you disagree with non-discretionary readings of the law then you should take that up with Manic Moran.

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, why the blue blazes should you have to give a reason??? Failure to say anything = guilt? What a perverted state of affairs. Innocent until proven guilty, not in the UK.

If someone has a knife and wont supply a good reason to have it, then they are guilty because they are guilty of having a knife without good reason. It should not be up to the courts to supply, or assume, good reasons on behalf of those who wont co-operate with them.

MadsL wrote: »

I seem to remember when I was in the Scouts, my knife was used mostly for whittling wood, would that be a "good reason"?

It would be a good reason to carry the knife while out with scouts. Not to school, or to the shops.

MadsL wrote: »

The heart of this is a society, the UK, where people are fundamentally treated as tending towards evil, and hence civil liberties are secondary to the control of the 'evil' in society. By contrast US society sees people fundamentally tending towards good and contributing towards the improvement of society - the allowance of US society for the carrying of arms by its people is made on the basis that civilian arms help to police society and that the majority of legally held arms are a positive measure towards a less, not more violent society.

Its odd then that every piece of statistical evidence shows that the US is a far more violent country than the UK, with far more deaths per 100,000 (eg. 5 vs 1.2 according to the UNODC).
Your interpretation here seems incredibly naive to me. It seems to me that US society sees people as so inclined to evil that it expects its everyday citizens to need to carry around weapons to defend themselves, because the police aren't up to the job themselves.

magicbastarder · 14-01-2013 03:21PM

Jernal wrote: »

I'm intrigued. How can you kill someone with a potato?

i think, irish history will show, it's easier to kill someone with *no* potatoes.

MadsL · 14-01-2013 05:18PM

robindch wrote: »

The legal definition of "murder" is "premeditated, unlawful killing".

Mr Napolitano tells his viewers that the second amendment is a "right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government". This shooting clearly requires premeditation and, since no law exists by which members of the duly-elected civil administration can be legally executed by members of the public, it's therefore unlawful too.

If you want to argue that violent uprising = murder then you might go to members of your own legislature and ask if they are therefore defacto "murderers".

Do you believe all violent revolutionary acts are therefore murder?

If you also feel that law enforcement carrying weapons = murder then I can see how also could argue for an unarmed police force. Is that your argument?

Therefore, it's "murder".If you read the second amendment carefully, you'll find it's there to help ensure the "security of a free State", not to allow members of the public to execute, as they wish, members of the duly-elected civil administration.

And if you read what I said carefully I said "the history" of that amendment - you might want to read the entire document within the historical context of the Declaration of Independence.

You also might want to consider that the Irish Proclamation asserts exactly the same right to rise in arms and even calls it a fundamental right. "In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty: six times during the past three hundred years[2] they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world

Most recently, Irish prisoners even protested to the point of death, the fact that their actions were seen as criminal, and therefore murder rather than revolutionary and therefore political.

MadsL · 14-01-2013 06:18PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Doesn't the desire to carry around a gun or knife for self defence pervert the concept of innocent until proven guilty? You are assuming that everyone else is potentially guilty.

I don't know too many people who leave their car unlocked with their wallet in plain sight. Being prepared for when violence is done to you is not the same as being violent. Or would you disgree with the principle of self-defence, as I asked before 'are you a pacifist?' and under what circumstances would you meet violence with violence?

Despite what the US may like to think, its Amendments don't apply globally.

Except that isn't what I said. I said the globally applied concept of the 5th Amendment - the notion of the right not to incriminate yourself "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
This is a right you rightly and naturally find in the Irish Constitution..and tested by Heaney v Ireland (1994)

Article 38.1
No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law.

Ironically given the roots of the principal in English law such a right to silence is almost unbiqutous across legal systems in civilized constitutional democracies.

The UK now allows that "anything they do not reveal in questioning but later rely upon in court may harm their defence". Meaning the court may infer guilt from initial silence.

the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6

European Convention on Human Rights.

Why exactly shouldn't guilt be implied from silence? Why the innocent stay silent?

Because the onus of proof is on the prosecution, or would you like a return to the Spanish Inquisition?

Another slippery slope argument.

Because the UK's descent into unbridled police powers is well documented.

Here is the UKs latest civil liberties infringement dressed up in a reactionary way to make it easier to swallow.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, announced plans to give senior officers the authority to order people off the streets if they suspect an area is about to be hit by violence and looting.

source
So another law based on what someone may do. Ostensibly introduced to combat crime, undoubtably will be used to break up political protest.

Even the Police Federation in the UK acknowledge the "arms race" in police powers

The expansion was seen as a consequence of the ‘arms race’ over law and order between Michael Howard and Tony Blair during the 1990s which had ratcheted up the politics of police powers. Ministers and politicians felt they were faced by political and social imperatives to which they had to respond. In 2004, outlining his five-year plan for law and order, Tony Blair stated “we asked the police what powers they wanted and we gave them to them.”

The problem is that you don't know what is being left out of the Daily Mail articles. For instance the article you quoted about the guy who said he had a small pen knife for cutting fruit. The Daily Mail said that was his good reason for having it, but his lawyer admitted that that in court he had said he had no good reason. Such poor reporting calls into questioning all of their reports on this subject. Its not like they haven't outright lied in articles before, just look at any of their previous anti-vaccine work.

I'm not going to defend the Daily Mail, however a smart barrister is going to say unless you have a cast-iron defence, better to be sorry and plead guilty.

Do you consider a small penknife in your own car's glovebox to be something that citizens should be prosecuted for after a police search?

If its against the law to carry knives or pepper spray then they are criminals. You may not agree with it, but that is a direct, non discretionary reading of the law.

Except that isn't the law. The law states good reason as a defence, the question we are asking is if self-defence is a valid reason.

If someone has a knife and wont supply a good reason to have it, then they are guilty because they are guilty of having a knife without good reason. It should not be up to the courts to supply, or assume, good reasons on behalf of those who wont co-operate with them.

What proof of 'good reason' would be acceptable to you, the guilty having thought through the excuses for carrying or the innocent gobsmacked that thier one inch penknife is now considered an offensive weapon.

It would be a good reason to carry the knife while out with scouts. Not to school, or to the shops.

If scouts meet after school?
Do you think a knife should be part of a scouting uniform?

Its odd then that every piece of statistical evidence shows that the US is a far more violent country than the UK, with far more deaths per 100,000 (eg. 5 vs 1.2 according to the UNODC).

And an increasingly less violent society. Europe has has centuries to establish law and order and the rule of law, my State has been part of the Federal US for just 101 years - it would have been an incredibly violent place in 1912.
Violence in the US has steadily been diminishing as the citizenry have become less tolerant of that violence. The establishment of law and order was the will of the people paying for sheriffs to protect them - exactly as happens here in my county today.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html
U.S. violent crime down for fifth straight year

Your interpretation here seems incredibly naive to me. It seems to me that US society sees people as so inclined to evil that it expects its everyday citizens to need to carry around weapons to defend themselves, because the police aren't up to the job themselves.

No, it doesn't expect - it allows them to, big difference. As to police up to the job, that is one thing if you live in an urban area, but please try to remember 20% of the US live in very depopulated areas where response times could be measured in hours, not minutes.

The citizenry have always been involved in law enforcement in the US. Historically, the elected sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county, and still retains the power to swear in citizens as Sheriff's Deputies.

The police (Sheriff's Department) in the US are not some distant Federal force, but very much of the community and serve at the will (and election, in the case of the Sheriff) of the people of the county.

Contributing to and being willing to help enforce law and order is not seen in the US as people being so inclined to evil who therefore have to arm themselves, it is the enabling and equipping citizens to protect first themselves, then their families, then their neighbours, then the wider community.

Manic Moran · 14-01-2013 07:14PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Doesn't the desire to carry around a gun or knife for self defence pervert the concept of innocent until proven guilty? You are assuming that everyone else is potentially guilty.

Yes, but there is no justification to act on that assumption until a threat has been demonstrated. The weapon stays nicely holstered until such a demonstration. This is different from being detained because you haven't threatened anyone yet.

Despite what the US may like to think, its Amendments don't apply globally.
Why exactly shouldn't guilt be implied from silence? Why the innocent stay silent?

This is a 40-minute video, but contains two talks, one from a laywer and one from a cop, and gives you a very good case for keeping your mouth shut, innocent or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

The problem is that you don't know what is being left out of the Daily Mail articles. For instance the article you quoted about the guy who said he had a small pen knife for cutting fruit. The Daily Mail said that was his good reason for having it, but his lawyer admitted that that in court he had said he had no good reason.

Good according to whose standards? If the commonly held standard is "I need it for work," and the CPS in that instance had said that that was the standard it would uphold...

If someone has a knife and wont supply a good reason to have it, then they are guilty because they are guilty of having a knife without good reason. It should not be up to the courts to supply, or assume, good reasons on behalf of those who wont co-operate with them.

My perspective is that a good reason should not be required to begin with. By the definition, it is subjective and nebulous, my good reason may not be good enough for you. When you're talking about potentially life-changing events like criminal conviction or prison sentences, forgive me if I think something a little more definitive is appropriate.

It seems to me that US society sees people as so inclined to evil that it expects its everyday citizens to need to carry around weapons to defend themselves, because the police aren't up to the job themselves.

Not only are they not up to the job, they don't have to be. And here's the dirty little secret: They are not up to the job in any country. Ireland, England, Switzerland, Canada: If they were, there would be no murders or other violent crimes. Further, the police have no obligation to protect you, the individual (Again, in any country that I am aware of). They may be able to detect and prosecute the guilty party afterwards, but that doesn't much help you once they're drawing the line around your body.

NTM

stevejazzx · 14-01-2013 10:21PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Extremely dodgy graph.

Firsltly, the lines indicate "at least one firearms law designed to protect children", but the colours indicate overall deaths by firearm, apparently with no correlation to age or circumstance.

Dont' get you?
The striped ones are states with more guns law regulations, specifically at least one law pertaining to child safety?
There are apparently less deaths in states with these laws with some exceptions (Nevada etc)

Secondly, the colours are a little off. Blue lines on a yellow background give a green impression. Blue lines on a red background still seem sortof reddish. Looking carefully, for example, you will see that California is yellow (one step in) and blue, whilst Nevada right next to it is red (one step in) and blue. Diametric opposites, but California 'looks' particularly good while NV doesn't 'look' particularly better. Most of the lined States seem to be right in the middle if I look closely.

Yeah most (nearly all) of lined states are lower?

Thirdly, it doesn't concern the effect of the law. California's child protection law, for example, makes it an offense to leave a firearm around where a kid can reach it and the kid then commits an offence with it. It does not make it an offense to leave a firearm around where a kid can reach it. Indeed, it specifically states that kids can use such firearms to shoot people if necessary. Quite how much of an effect that law has in practice is debateable since the law only kicks in if the firearm is misused.

I don't follow - how could this be misconstrued or reflected incorrectly on this graph?

Manic Moran · 15-01-2013 12:44AM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Dont' get you?
The striped ones are states with more guns law regulations, specifically at least one law pertaining to child safety?
There are apparently less deaths in states with these laws with some exceptions (Nevada etc)

There are some 20,000 laws pertaining to firearms in the US. One specific law aimed at child safety of undetermined extent in any particular State, is probably not a particularly defining factor in the number of firearm deaths overall.

Yeah most (nearly all) of lined states are lower?

Slightly. The plurality of all the states (lined and not lined) are in the middle bracket, 10-15.

I wouldn't be surprised also to see that there may be an equal uneven distribution in justified firearms deaths. States like California, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York and Massachussets tend not to be gun-friendly to begin with. If Texans or Floridians take advantage of the fact that they're armed to legally shoot people (and I can't do it here in California), that may skew the overall numbers of deaths higher, whilst lowering the murder rate. Example is Vermont, showing as right in the middle on the chart (10-15) yet they have the lowest murder rate in the Union. Either Vermontians prefer to murder people with other tools, or they're just not deliberately shooting the innocent anywhere near as much despite the firearms.

I don't follow - how could this be misconstrued or reflected incorrectly on this graph?

The child protection law in California does not have any effect until after the unlawful shooting is carried out. In other words, it merely replicates the fact that murder/manslaughter/suicide are already illegal. It does not mandate that firearms be kept away from children, only that the children aren't allowed to go shoot people (including themselves) who don't deserve it and if that happens, the adult gets some of the blame for facilitating them.

Since by that point they've already commited the death, the effect of the child protection law is a bit retrospective and not much of a deterrent.

NTM

Gun control in the USA

Comments