Gun control in the USA

Mark Hamill · 17-01-2013 02:36AM

MadsL wrote: »

If they draw as a result of countering aggression then they are not brandishing and no act (crime) has been committed.

And if they are just brandishing a gun because they feel like it/

MadsL wrote: »

Because that is their right under the law.

Now, show me why that law is wrong.

Their right simply allows them to stay quiet. I asked why would they stay quiet.

MadsL wrote: »

So there may be a logical and legal reason to be in possesion of car keys whilst drunk. Very well tell the nice policeman what your alternative arrangements are and you can have your car keys back. Or stay silent and go to jail, even if it is better legally to say nothing whilst intoxicated.
This prevention by searching approach and forced questioning is what happens with knives in the UK, yet you seem to be arguing against the same approach when applied to drunk driving.

Why is that?

Already explained:
It might be preventative, but there are other justifications for having car keys while in a bar, therefore it is unreasonable (like taking a knife from someone with a genuine use for one). Someone who will not give a reason for carrying a knife, has no legal reason for carrying a knife and therefore should not be allowed one.

Mark Hamill · 17-01-2013 02:37AM

jank wrote: »

If you are not proposing such a change then why do you think it reasonable or justifiable that anyone can be arrested if there is a danger of intent?

Why? Because there is a danger of intent.

MadsL · 17-01-2013 02:52AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And if they are just brandishing a gun because they feel like it/

Then they have committed a criminal ACT - I keep pointing this out to you. If the gun is in their vehicle then they are committing no crime, unlike your knife law they cannot be held to account because they might brandish it.

Their right simply allows them to stay quiet. I asked why would they stay quiet.

Wonder away. Under Irish law they are not required to say anything. They could be slightly intoxicated and not wish to say anything that might incriminate them. They could be high on mushrooms (legal if picked fresh). The right to silence is enshrined in the Irish constitution. I really think you should start a thread on Legal Discussion if you are that curious about the reasons. You are starting to sound like an annoying eight year old..."But Why?"

Already explained:

It might be preventative, but there are other justifications for having car keys while in a bar, therefore it is unreasonable (like taking a knife from someone with a genuine use for one). Someone who will not give a reason for carrying a knife, has no legal reason for carrying a knife and therefore should not be allowed one.

What justifications? Are they more reasons to have car keys other than to drive, than there are reasons to have a knife other than to kill someone?

What if the car is parked in the pub car park and there is no-one prepared to show they are sober and that this is the person will be driving? What if there is no-one else listed as insured to drive? Should the car owner be prosecuted before they drink-drive? What if they say nothing, an admission of guilt in your book, immediate arrest?

So I'm guessing you draw the line at police searches of citizens in pubs? Why are random searches of the public on the street acceptable to you?

jank · 17-01-2013 08:26AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? Because there is a danger of intent.

I have two hands where I could easily strangle someone weaker than me. Should I be locked away so? Minority Report, here we come.

Morbert · 17-01-2013 01:08PM

I'm arriving late on this one, so what I will say has probably already been said.

Guns in America are there to stay. Their removal is impossible on both a logistical and a constitutional level. The best that can be done is comprehensive background checks, and severe punishment for illegal gun ownership.

Mark Hamill · 17-01-2013 06:54PM

MadsL wrote: »

Then they have committed a criminal ACT - I keep pointing this out to you.

And why is the act criminal? Because of the implied intent.

MadsL wrote: »

Wonder away. Under Irish law they are not required to say anything. They could be slightly intoxicated and not wish to say anything that might incriminate them. They could be high on mushrooms (legal if picked fresh). The right to silence is enshrined in the Irish constitution. I really think you should start a thread on Legal Discussion if you are that curious about the reasons. You are starting to sound like an annoying eight year old..."But Why?"

Your on a forum whose very existence is based on asking "But, Why?" of unquestioned or poorly explained assumptions.
Your answer to the question of why an innocent might want to stay silent seems to be that they might be guilty of something else. Which means they aren't innocent.

MadsL wrote: »

What justifications? Are they more reasons to have car keys other than to drive, than there are reasons to have a knife other than to kill someone?

You are looking at it the wrong way. There is essentially one use for car keys, but there are many justifiable reasons why you might be carrying them with no intention of using them (eg most people have more than just their car key on the ring, so may just carry it with them even if they don't bring their car).

MadsL wrote: »

Should the car owner be prosecuted before they drink-drive?

Not necessarily. I have already made it clear that I am happy for the police to simply intervene to prevent a likely crime without prosecuting for it (you don't have to prosecute someone unwilling to explain why they have a knife, but the knife should be confiscated if they wont say what they need it for).

Mark Hamill · 17-01-2013 06:55PM

jank wrote: »

I have two hands where I could easily strangle someone weaker than me. Should I be locked away so? Minority Report, here we come.

Physical capability =/= intent.

MadsL · 17-01-2013 07:25PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why is the act criminal? Because of the implied intent.

NO!! Because the act is threatening. And that is the criminal act. The word fuck is benign (ish) but when coupled with I'm gonna fuck you up! It becomes threatening behaviour. Brandishing in and of itself is a criminal act.

Your on a forum whose very existence is based on asking "But, Why?" of unquestioned or poorly explained assumptions.
Your answer to the question of why an innocent might want to stay silent seems to be that they might be guilty of something else. Which means they aren't innocent.

If you really are ignorant of the fact that proving guilt requires evidence and that innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the legal system and the majority of Human Rights codes, then I invite you to start a thread on removal of the right to silence and its consequences. Seriously, this is getting old. Do start a thread - I'll gladly contribute - but the rest of the civilized world (apart from the UK) agrees with the principle as protected by your Constitution.

Your answer to the question of why an innocent might want to stay silent seems to be that they might be guilty of something else. Which means they aren't innocent.

Wow. You have a deeply twisted view of innocence. You might be pedo, which means you are definitely a pedo. Holy. F*ck.

You are looking at it the wrong way. There is essentially one use for car keys, but there are many justifiable reasons why you might be carrying them with no intention of using them (eg most people have more than just their car key on the ring, so may just carry it with them even if they don't bring their car).

Just as there are many justifiable reasons to have a knife on you. My point all along. Thank you.

Not necessarily. I have already made it clear that I am happy for the police to simply intervene to prevent a likely crime without prosecuting for it (you don't have to prosecute someone unwilling to explain why they have a knife, but the knife should be confiscated if they wont say what they need it for).

Except that is not what happens in the UK, even people with no prior convictions are prosecuted and get criminal records as a result of their 'crime'.

MadsL · 17-01-2013 07:26PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Physical capability =/= intent.

But possession = intent in your view.

jank · 18-01-2013 12:37AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Physical capability =/= intent.

Physical ownership of a gun =/= intent.

jank · 18-01-2013 12:43AM

MadsL wrote: »

Wow. You have a deeply twisted view of innocence. You might be pedo, which means you are definitely a pedo. Holy. F*ck.

.

Indeed. Guilt by association was used by Stalin. If you arent Guilty now, well you would have been guilty in the future of some crime, hence a bullet in the head is justified.

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 02:08AM

MadsL wrote: »

NO!! Because the act is threatening.

Its threatening because of a perceived intent :rolleyes:.

MadsL wrote: »

If you really are ignorant of the fact that proving guilt requires evidence and that innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the legal system and the majority of Human Rights codes, then I invite you to start a thread on removal of the right to silence and its consequences. Seriously, this is getting old. Do start a thread - I'll gladly contribute - but the rest of the civilized world (apart from the UK) agrees with the principle as protected by your Constitution.

Yet again I'll say that you don't have to prosecute (ie declare guilty) someone who has a knife but wont provide explanation for it, just take away the knife.

MadsL wrote: »

Wow. You have a deeply twisted view of innocence. You might be pedo, which means you are definitely a pedo. Holy. F*ck.

Eh, you are the one who suggested that people would stay silent in case they gave away some other crime they had committed, not me.

MadsL wrote: »

Just as there are many justifiable reasons to have a knife on you. My point all along. Thank you.

I never said there weren't justifiable reasons to have a knife.

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 02:12AM

MadsL wrote: »

But possession = intent in your view.

Since when?

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 02:14AM

jank wrote: »

Physical ownership of a gun =/= intent.

I never said it did.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 02:15AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its threatening because of a perceived intent :rolleyes:.

The intent is not the crime - the act is the crime. It really is quite simple.

Yet again I'll say that you don't have to prosecute (ie declare guilty) someone who has a knife but wont provide explanation for it, just take away the knife.

So now you not only want to do away with the right to silence, but also the right to property. You are proposing seizure of property without due process!

Eh, you are the one who suggested that people would stay silent in case they gave away some other crime they had committed, not me.

In both cases I quoted (intoxication and being uder the influence of hallucination) no crime had been committed. Staying silent when you are not in control of your faculties would seem prudent wouldn't you say. Still no thread on the matter though eh?

I never said there weren't justifiable reasons to have a knife.

Good. I shouldn't have to enumerate them then when stopped by police as they are widely known. I'm glad we cleared that up.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 02:16AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when?

Since your interpretation of silence when in possession of a knife = intent.

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 02:43PM

MadsL wrote: »

The intent is not the crime - the act is the crime. It really is quite simple.

Not simple enough for you it would seem. The act is a crime because of the implied intent. If there was no implied intent, why would the act of brandishing a weapon be a crime?

MadsL wrote: »

So now you not only want to do away with the right to silence, but also the right to property. You are proposing seizure of property without due process!

You are questioned when you go to buy a gun, if you don't answer those questions satisfactorily you don't get the gun. Does that mean current gun control removes the right to property?

MadsL wrote: »

In both cases I quoted (intoxication and being uder the influence of hallucination) no crime had been committed. Staying silent when you are not in control of your faculties would seem prudent wouldn't you say. Still no thread on the matter though eh?

If no crime had been committed then what is the danger of talking?

MadsL wrote: »

Good. I shouldn't have to enumerate them then when stopped by police as they are widely known. I'm glad we cleared that up.

If they are enumerate and widely known it should not be a problem to give one.

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 02:46PM

MadsL wrote: »

Since your interpretation of silence when in possession of a knife = intent.

First you said "possession = intent in your view" and now its "silence when in possession of a knife = intent". I think its clear these are both very different views and neither of them is mine. My view is silent, in possession with no intent is indistinguishable from silent, in possession with intent.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 04:59PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not simple enough for you it would seem. The act is a crime because of the implied intent. If there was no implied intent, why would the act of brandishing a weapon be a crime?

Because I don't need to shoot you in order to rob you. If intent was what was being prosecuted wouldn't it be a defence to show that the gun was unloaded? However, the prosecution does not need to show intent merely evidence of actions.

You are questioned when you go to buy a gun, if you don't answer those questions satisfactorily you don't get the gun. Does that mean current gun control removes the right to property?

Of course not, firstly in law there is no right to property until a contract of exchange has been made. Until I own the gun I have no right to property. Conditions as to its purchase do not infringe my right to property as I do not won the item yet. Background checks form part of conditions of purchase.

If however you institute an inquisition as to my reasons for owning something after I purchase it, then you violate my rights to property.

Confiscations without due process violate my rights to property, however and could be subject to legal challenge as to legality of the confiscation.

If no crime had been committed then what is the danger of talking?

What is the danger of silence?

If they are enumerate and widely known it should not be a problem to give one.

You still persist in pursuing your (pretend?) misunderstanding of the reasons for the right to silence. This is a thread on gun control. I have over and over explained that this is a right enshrined in your own constitution, and yet you continue to pick at it. I have invited you to start a thread here or on Legal Discussion as to its purpose. I am tired of saying it at this point. Are you so committed to this line that you cannot accept defeat when faced with constitutional rights? It is getting old.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 05:03PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

First you said "possession = intent in your view" and now its "silence when in possession of a knife = intent". I think its clear these are both very different views and neither of them is mine. My view is silent, in possession with no intent is indistinguishable from silent, in possession with intent.

Tell me, if I am found to have a gold chain in my pocket and say nothing to police, should I be charged with theft?

MrPudding · 18-01-2013 07:08PM

MadsL wrote: »

Tell me, if I am found to have a gold chain in my pocket and say nothing to police, should I be charged with theft?

That would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?

MrP

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 08:07PM

MadsL wrote: »

Because I don't need to shoot you in order to rob you. If intent was what was being prosecuted wouldn't it be a defence to show that the gun was unloaded? However, the prosecution does not need to show intent merely evidence of actions.

Just because you know the gun was unloaded doesn't mean I do. The perceived intent in brandishing a weapon is to use it.

MadsL wrote: »

Confiscations without due process violate my rights to property, however and could be subject to legal challenge as to legality of the confiscation.

Is due process not served by asking what the knife is for?

MadsL wrote: »

What is the danger of silence?

A question is not an answer to a question. But, to answer your question, teh danger is in making yourself look guilty.

MadsL wrote: »

Are you so committed to this line that you cannot accept defeat when faced with constitutional rights? It is getting old.

Constitutional rights are not unquestionable. It is getting old that your only answer to my question of why you should stay silent is "because you can".

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 08:09PM

MadsL wrote: »

Tell me, if I am found to have a gold chain in my pocket and say nothing to police, should I be charged with theft?

Theft is a different act to murder or assault (what was implied in every use of the word intent, up to your last post). Maybe you shouldn't be moving the goalposts before giving your final thoughts on the original hypothetical situation.

MrPudding · 18-01-2013 08:22PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Theft is a different act to murder or assault (what was implied in every use of the word intent, up to your last post). Maybe you shouldn't be moving the goalposts before giving your final thoughts on the original hypothetical situation.

Theft is actually a good example because, like murder, there is an element of intent required.

MrP

Mark Hamill · 18-01-2013 09:15PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Theft is actually a good example because, like murder, there is an element of intent required.

MrP

Its not far away, I'll admit, but Madsl has made a habit strawmanning my position by slightly changing the situation in each post. Better to keep it in terms of weapons and intent to use, until he is happy with my response in relation to that.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 10:09PM

MrPudding wrote: »

That would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it?

MrP

You mean it requires additional evidence, which I would not dispute. If other evidence links me with the crime of theft then by all means charge me.

However, if no such evidence exists and you have a silent me, with a gold chain in my pocket, and no reports of a stolen gold chain, should I be arrested "just in case"?

I hardly think you would be one for advocating the removal of the right to silence?

MadsL · 18-01-2013 10:34PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because you know the gun was unloaded doesn't mean I do. The perceived intent in brandishing a weapon is to use it.

And that is why the law prosecutes the act, not the intent. I am not arrested for my intent to shoot someone (which could be defended by showing the gun was unloaded) but the act of brandishing, punished regardless of the status of the firearm? Am I making this too hard for you to understand?

Is due process not served by asking what the knife is for?

You don't understand due process if you are asking this. Due process is the means by which citizens have a reasonable right to be treated equally under the law and for the law to be applied in an equitable and just manner.

A question is not an answer to a question. But, to answer your question, teh danger is in making yourself look guilty.

Indeed, and that is why the right to silence is an important part of a citizen's legal protection, so that nothing can be inferred for your statements at a latter time.

For example, a recently divorced man finds his wife dead with slashed wrists, he assumes she committed suicide and says to the police "Why, oh why did I do it!" - referring to his personal history and cheating on her, and subsequent divorce. The death later transpires to be murder. The man, whilst innocent, had now badly prejudiced his defence.

Constitutional rights are not unquestionable.

No, they are not. But there is a good chance they have been stringently tested, in this case in the Supreme Court of law, and found to hold fast. You arguing against them on a discussion board is as useful as asking me to justify the laws of gravity to you and why I personally abide by them when we are discussing rock climbing. If you have an alternate view, by all means explain it - but railing against me for pointing out a almost universally held view that is part of most Constitutions of the world and asking me to justify it to your satisfaction is pretty pointless, and getting very boring for readers of this thread.

For the nth time, start a new thread on it.

It is getting old that your only answer to my question of why you should stay silent is "because you can".

Plainly untrue, I gave you two examples a while ago vis answering police questions whilst intoxicated or high is a terrible idea.

MadsL · 18-01-2013 10:46PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not far away, I'll admit, but Madsl has made a habit strawmanning my position by slightly changing the situation in each post. Better to keep it in terms of weapons and intent to use, until he is happy with my response in relation to that.

If it is my fault that I have to keep giving you different examples because you are incapable of understanding that the law prosecutes acts and not intent - if that is strawmanning then YOU give me an example of a crime of intent that can be prosecuted without an act being committed. Intent may need to be shown by the prosecution in order to prove mens rea exists and there is not a defence of accidental harm, but without an act, the prosecution cannot convict for what someone thought.

This is not a Minority Report society.

MrPudding · 19-01-2013 02:18AM

MadsL wrote: »

If it is my fault that I have to keep giving you different examples because you are incapable of understanding that the law prosecutes acts and not intent - if that is strawmanning then YOU give me an example of a crime of intent that can be prosecuted without an act being committed. Intent may need to be shown by the prosecution in order to prove mens rea exists and there is not a defence of accidental harm, but without an act, the prosecution cannot convict for what someone thought.

This is not a Minority Report society.

Impossible attempts. There is no illegal act, the person is convicted on what they thought.

MrP

Mark Hamill · 19-01-2013 02:28AM

MadsL wrote: »

And that is why the law prosecutes the act, not the intent. I am not arrested for my intent to shoot someone (which could be defended by showing the gun was unloaded) but the act of brandishing, punished regardless of the status of the firearm? Am I making this too hard for you to understand?

You wont be arrested for brandishing your firearm if you do so for self defence. Hence it is the intent of the act that gets you arrested.

MadsL wrote: »

You don't understand due process if you are asking this. Due process is the means by which citizens have a reasonable right to be treated equally under the law and for the law to be applied in an equitable and just manner.

You didn't really answer my question. I''l change two words to make it simpler: Could due process not be served by asking what the knife is for?

MadsL wrote: »

Indeed, and that is why the right to silence is an important part of a citizen's legal protection, so that nothing can be inferred for your statements at a latter time.

For example, a recently divorced man finds his wife dead with slashed wrists, he assumes she committed suicide and says to the police "Why, oh why did I do it!" - referring to his personal history and cheating on her, and subsequent divorce. The death later transpires to be murder. The man, whilst innocent, had now badly prejudiced his defence.

Transpire is the wrong word here (it means "Prove to be the case"). You mean "was declared". By explaining himself the man could have vindicated his innocence. By staying silent he looks like he is trying to hide something that he is guilty of. Guilt can be inferred from silence.

MadsL wrote: »

No, they are not. But there is a good chance they have been stringently tested, in this case in the Supreme Court of law, and found to hold fast. You arguing against them on a discussion board is as useful as asking me to justify the laws of gravity to you and why I personally abide by them when we are discussing rock climbing. If you have an alternate view, by all means explain it - but railing against me for pointing out a almost universally held view that is part of most Constitutions of the world and asking me to justify it to your satisfaction is pretty pointless, and getting very boring for readers of this thread.

For the nth time, start a new thread on it.

Scientific laws =/= legislative laws.
No-one else has commented on how boring it is for you to not explain yourself.
I'm not interested in having a thread on the right to silence, I'm not interested in other peoples opinion of it. I just want to know your opinion of it. If your opinion is just that its unquestionable because its in the constitution then admit that and we can move on. What is tiring is you constantly responding with incredulity and argumentum ad constitution.

MadsL wrote: »

Plainly untrue, I gave you two examples a while ago vis answering police questions whilst intoxicated or high is a terrible idea.

In both those examples you gave you said its a bad idea to talk because you could give away your guilt in something else. Which means they are good reasons for why guilty people should stay silent. I am talking about a innocent person staying silent. Why should an innocent person stay silent?

Gun control in the USA

Comments