Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?



Page 15 of 16 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page:

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 3200

Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:06 pm

:lol:

You phoned that one in.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:28 pm

@CoMF and Raptor.

The reason for restricting magazine capacity is that with a 32 round extended clip you can more or less wipe out a room without reloading, at least if the person has to reload there is a chance that he or she will be less focused on target acquisition and less aware of his or her surroundings at that time.

With guns shows and illegal guns, I meant “guns later used in illegal activities” numbers are available from ATF.

The problem with “punishment” is that it’s after the fact, if someone shows a lack of judgment and harms someone due to carelessness with a firearm it does little to aid the person who was harmed or the family of that person.

The argument that you can limit the kind of arms or the capability of arms is not slippery slope in any way; it’s already been tried in courts in the case of multiple amendments to restrict certain things. The famous “fire in a crowded theater” for instance is an example of curtailment of free speech. If the amendment was followed 100% then Bradley Manning’s actions are covered by the first amendment.
The first amendment does in no way protect the right to all kinds of expression, just like the second does not have to include someone having an M16.
I support more training, because I was responsible for training the recruits at the range while I was an active competitive shooter. Not only does it help a person who wants a weapon for self-defense actually being able to effectively use this weapon in that situation it also helps build respect for the destructive capabilities of a firearm. As I've said before the benefit of knife violence over gun violence is that there are no innocent bystanders in a stabbing.

The ability to legally sell privately owned firearms to individuals needs to be removed or the seller face criminal prosecution as an accessory if that weapon is used to commit a crime.

Personally, I currently own 4 firearms, 12 gauge, 308, .22 and an over/under, in order to get those weapons in my country I had to:

A: Qualify as a hunter.

B: Have a clean rap-sheet.
C: No medical disqualifiers, you can’t get a firearms license here if you have epilepsy for instance.

They all have to be kept locked up in a safe, with the firing pins in a different approved location, and the police has the right to come inspect my weapons safe at any time. I have no problem with this. However, if the US wants to be in the good company of such pinnacles of civilization as South Africa, Columbia and Zimbabwe by all means.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 877

Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:13 am

Raptor wrote:
Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.


Hi Raptor,

I'm not against private gun ownership. I find some of the restrictions on gun ownership about as absurd as Texas trying to limit freedom of speech to the daytime, and with a maximum of 30 minutes of speech in any 24-hour period.

What I find very questionable is the "extraordinary protection" of immunity from prosecution & liability broadly included in many versions of "make my day" laws that extent well beyond the limited "Castle Doctrine", which itself is often extended much too much.

The case of "People v. Guenther, 740 P. 2d 971 - Colo: Supreme Court 1987" includes a "wisdom alert":

"There is a constitutionally significant difference in kind between requiring a defendant, on the one hand, to bear the burden of proving a claim of pretrial entitlement to immunity from prosecution and, on the other, to carry the burden of proof at trial on an affirmative defense to criminal charges. Section 18-1-704.5(3) creates a benefit to a defendant far greater than an affirmative defense. If the statute is found to apply to the facts of the case, it will completely prohibit any further prosecution of charges for which, but for the statute, the defendant would otherwise be required to stand trial. Although the wisdom of such legislation is not for us to decide, it cannot be disputed that the immunity created by section 18-1-704.5(3) is an extraordinary protection which, so far as we know, has no analogue in Colorado statutory or decisional law."

Part/Section IV, B: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

And, with large summed liability possibilities also often neutralized under "make my day" laws, the "extraordinary protection" tends to grant financial protection insurance as an incentive to manipulating & staging scenarios with even true accidents as active defenses instead of just accidents.

As with swimming pools, I wonder if the dangers of guns often outweigh the benefits of having them, but as for collecting guns as works of art, I dislike more artworks of Thomas Kinkade to a greater degree, whether if lead containing paints are used or not.

The "extraordinary protections", to extraordinary levels of stupidity, of "make my day" laws applying to all weapons, especially tend to make the stupidities taint the very legal right to bear arms, at least in the often ultimately controlling popular public perceptions.

Tadzio



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 328

Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:11 pm

TM wrote:
The reason for restricting magazine capacity is that with a 32 round extended clip you can more or less wipe out a room without reloading, at least if the person has to reload there is a chance that he or she will be less focused on target acquisition and less aware of his or her surroundings at that time.


Firstly, to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a "32 round extended clip." I do, however, know that there are magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds or more. Before you dismiss this as mere semantics, please bear in mind that while "magazines" and "clips" both serve the same purpose (i.e. reloading a firearm), they do not operate in the same fashion; ergo, misapplying the term "clip" to a magazine demonstrates a lack of firearms knowledge.

Secondly, the latter portion of the above paragraph is begging the question and demonstrates further naiveté regarding firearms. Using the revolver as an example, one would assume that a swing out cylinder which typically holds only 5 or 6 rounds would be far "slower" to reload than inserting a magazine into an autoloading pistol holding twice as many rounds or more. In reality, the individual skill of the shooter and whether they're inserting the rounds individually or using a speedloader or moonclip are the only factors determining the speed at which it's reloaded.

This is no lie. While Jerry Miculek is admittedly an extreme example, the following video demonstrates what a revolver is capable of in skilled hands:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw[/youtube]

I would also like to point out that the potential number of rounds one can fire is limited only by the number of speedloaders or moonclips carried one one's person, and they are not much bulkier than your typical staggered column pistol magazine nor are they any more difficult to use.

TM wrote:
The problem with “punishment” is that it’s after the fact, if someone shows a lack of judgment and harms someone due to carelessness with a firearm it does little to aid the person who was harmed or the family of that person.


Not true. This is precisely why we have civil and criminal courts. Furthermore, until we have omniscient law enforcement personnel or "precogs" a-la Minority Report, expecting the justice system to do anything other than punish crimes or torts after the fact is wishful thinking at best.

TM wrote:
The argument that you can limit the kind of arms or the capability of arms is not slippery slope in any way; it’s already been tried in courts in the case of multiple amendments to restrict certain things. The famous “fire in a crowded theater” for instance is an example of curtailment of free speech. If the amendment was followed 100% then Bradley Manning’s
actions are covered by the first amendment.


Incorrect. Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater merely proves that free speech does not entail "freedom from consequences." Citing one very prominent example, Justice Alito elaborated in his dissenting opinion on the controversial Snyder v. Phelps decision that while the activities of the WBC were indeed protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment did not grant them immunity from IIED torts.

Insofar as Bradley Manning is concerned, while the First Amendment may not have protected him in light of Supreme Court decisions regarding government employees, I nonetheless view him more as a whistleblower than a "traitor" since no American soldiers were harmed or killed as a result of his actions.

TM wrote:
The first amendment does in no way protect the right to all kinds of expression, just like the second does not have to include someone having an M16.


Here in the United States, similar reasoning has been used as justification for curtailing the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." Would you let out a hue and cry if your own government placed "reasonable restrictions" upon your rights to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, or a trial by a jury of your peers? Would you feel diminished if someone patronizingly told you that your objections were absurd and that such restrictions were "for the betterment of society" or "the greater good"? The point I am trying to make is that civil rights are not a "buffet" where we get to pick and choose the ones we like and ignore the ones we find unpalatable, and that the Bill of Rights enshrined within our Constitution was intended to be a "package deal" meant to be enjoyed in its entirety.

TM wrote:
I support more training, because I was responsible for training the recruits at the range while I was an active competitive shooter. Not only does it help a person who wants a weapon for self-defense actually being able to effectively use this weapon in that situation it also helps build respect for the destructive capabilities of a firearm. As I've said before the benefit of knife violence over gun violence is that there are no innocent bystanders in a stabbing.


While I too am an ardent supporter of training for anyone who wishes to own a firearm, negligent discharges occur far too frequently amongst law enforcement personnel for me to be convinced that mandatory training will signifigantly reduce the number of gun related criminal negligence and tort claims.

TM wrote:
The ability to legally sell privately owned firearms to individuals needs to be removed or the seller face criminal prosecution as an accessory if that weapon is used to commit a crime.


Did you know that in the United States, it is already against the law in many jurisdictions to knowingly sell a firearm to a criminal? Rather than forbid all private sales, why not give private sellers an incentive to perform a background check on a potential buyer? FFL holders already conduct them for consignment sales and charge a nominal fee for the service, so it would not be unreasonable to do the same for P2P sales. If a seller doesn't have a background check performed before the sale, they do not receive immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability should the firearm be used in a crime.

TM wrote:
Personally, I currently own 4 firearms, 12 gauge, 308, .22 and an over/under, in order to get those weapons in my country I had to:

A: Qualify as a hunter.


In my experience, hunters are typically held to a lower standard than individuals who use firearms for self defense, and this causes me no small of amount of dismay.

TM wrote:
B: Have a clean rap-sheet.


Reasonable. We have similar laws in the United States.

TM wrote:
C: No medical disqualifiers, you can’t get a firearms license here if you have epilepsy for instance.


I would like to refer you to Section 9 of the Bill of Rights enumerated in your own Constitution:

Quote:
Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

[Emphasis Mine]


In light of this, could you please explain to us how this particular discrimination against the disabled as it relates to the legal ownership of firearms is "fair"?

TM wrote:
They all have to be kept locked up in a safe, with the firing pins in a different approved location, and the police has the right to come inspect my weapons safe at any time.


Are you implying that the police have the right to search your home without probable cause?

Also, what would you do if you needed to use those firearms to defend yourself?

Furthermore, do you not realize that laws which mandate decommissioning create victimless crimes in the event that they are not followed, and that the prosecution of such crimes inevitably results in a waste of public resources?

TM wrote:
I have no problem with [surprise police inspections]. However, if the US wants to be in the good company of such pinnacles of civilization as South Africa, Columbia and Zimbabwe by all means.


If, by "civilization," you mean discrimination against the disabled and being subject to arbitrary search and seizure without probable cause, you can keep it.



Catarina
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Europe

Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:49 am

This is just an update to my previous post. I just think about the family who let their boy walk to the store because they thought he was in a safe community.

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-justice-depar ... -news.html



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 877

Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:34 am

Catarina wrote:
This is just an update to my previous post. I just think about the family who let their boy walk to the store because they thought he was in a safe community.

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-justice-depar ... -news.html


Hi Catarina,

Mother Jone's website gives two outstanding views of contrary interpretations of Florida's self-defense and "stand your ground" laws:

In championing the law, former NRA president and longtime Florida gun lobbyist Marion Hammer said: "Through time, in this country, what I like to call bleeding-heart criminal coddlers want you to give a criminal an even break, so that when you're attacked, you're supposed to turn around and run, rather than standing your ground and protecting yourself and your family and your property."
VERSUS
The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution".

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03 ... -explained

The Jone's cited newspaper article "Five years since Florida enacted 'stand-your-ground' law, justifiable homicides are up", gives many statistics/cases that inspired many comments very much like those here

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 128317.ece

Other states with extended & unsound "stand-your-ground" laws have ocassionaly reeled in extreme stretches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgps ... ure=relmfu
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

Another case that referenced the previously cited old Federal case, is (where Miranda Rights became the pivotal issue following disasterous confusions):
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/law_v_state.html

A very recent New York Times' article cite possible moves of Florida legislators considering changing the absurd law:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/03/ ... ml?_r=1&hp

With the "Make My Day" laws combined with the "Stand Your Ground" laws, Gun-Rights supporters may have also inadvertently inflicted a nearly fatal shot on the more recent & wide interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Tadzio



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 3200

Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:06 pm

Yeah, prosecutors across the state opposed the law in 2005, but unlike in Minnesota it was still signed by the governor (Bush).

The Martin case is big news today but there is also a case of a black man shooting a white man that is currently being evaluated for it's "stand your ground" claim by a judge. Google Trevor Dooley. He's as nutty as Zimmerman.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0 ... round-law/



Catarina
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Europe

Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:57 am

I have been too busy being the Aspie mother of a special needs child on most of these related issues. However, my mind naturally looks for patterns, and I fear the Trayon Martin story which offends my sense of the rule of law (and as horrific as I find it as a US citizen and mother) may actually be some sort of rallying point for another agenda. Perhaps those with a larger picture of the issues have more insight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alton-lu/ ... 80869.html
http://news.yahoo.com/could-peacetime-m ... 00976.html



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 877

Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:15 am

D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE

Vexcalibur wrote:
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/02/28/veto_the_minnesota_shoot_first_law

"He was black and obviously a threat"
"I felt Jehova witnesses were a threat to my tranquility"
"He is a democrat, makes me feel threatened".
"I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex".


Hi Vexcalibur,

Flood practicalities with technicalities for:

Vexcalibur wrote:
By definition, murder can't be legal. Murder is illegal homicide. All places have situations in which it is legal to commit homicide. I guess Florida just added new ones and you don't agree with the change, but some context is needed.


Tadzio



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 31552
Location: New Jersey

Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:28 am

Honest to goodness self defense is always justified, even if the outcome is fatal.

ruveyn



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 877

Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:49 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Honest to goodness self defense is always justified, even if the outcome is fatal.

ruveyn


Hi ruveyn,

In Self-Defense of honest to goodness, with your comments including pus-&-blisters elsewhere, is this a view of just a hill version of the Sermon on the Mount, as also sung by Cohen in "Democracy"?

"....from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all........"

Tadzio



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:33 pm

TM wrote:
@CoMF and Raptor.

The reason for restricting magazine capacity is that with a 32 round extended clip you can more or less wipe out a room without reloading, at least if the person has to reload there is a chance that he or she will be less focused on target acquisition and less aware of his or her surroundings at that time.

Shooters that do not have access to larger capacity magazines tend to switch to multiple firearms of a larger caliber.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:37 pm

Hey look a squirrel wait what am I saying they cant see it.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 5572

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:41 pm

Tadzio wrote:
D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE

Vexcalibur wrote:
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/02/28/veto_the_minnesota_shoot_first_law

"He was black and obviously a threat"
"I felt Jehova witnesses were a threat to my tranquility"
"He is a democrat, makes me feel threatened".
"I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex".


Hi Vexcalibur,

Flood practicalities with technicalities for:

Vexcalibur wrote:
By definition, murder can't be legal. Murder is illegal homicide. All places have situations in which it is legal to commit homicide. I guess Florida just added new ones and you don't agree with the change, but some context is needed.


Tadzio


I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make with that double quote (or if there is a point at all). But I suspect you are being incapable of correctly understanding my post made in the other thread and somehow buy it as an endorsement or some lame idea. I was just saying, when killing people is legal, it is not murder, that does not necessarily mean I'd agree that it is an ethical homicide. In fact, I was criticizing the concept.


_________________
.


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:00 pm
Posts: 877

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:14 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
D.G.U.: DANGEROUS GUN USAGE

Vexcalibur wrote:
http://open.salon.com/blog/steve_klingaman/2012/02/28/veto_the_minnesota_shoot_first_law

"He was black and obviously a threat"
"I felt Jehova witnesses were a threat to my tranquility"
"He is a democrat, makes me feel threatened".
"I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex".


Hi Vexcalibur,

Flood practicalities with technicalities for:

Vexcalibur wrote:
By definition, murder can't be legal. Murder is illegal homicide. All places have situations in which it is legal to commit homicide. I guess Florida just added new ones and you don't agree with the change, but some context is needed.


Tadzio


I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make with that double quote (or if there is a point at all). But I suspect you are being incapable of correctly understanding my post made in the other thread and somehow buy it as an endorsement or some lame idea. I was just saying, when killing people is legal, it is not murder, that does not necessarily mean I'd agree that it is an ethical homicide. In fact, I was criticizing the concept.


Hi Vexcalibur,

In the sense of what can be experienced, murder can be legal. That includes the "practical" instances in reality being technically denied using abstract codifications of less than real rules. For instance, I have often heard that Cain murdered Abel, and, at times, "thou shall not kill" as restricted to "thou shall not murder", as if all other homicides are A-OK (I've also heard "thou" is singular, and as a group, A-OK again!!).

The other thread about much the same as here of the modified Castle Doctrine, but in Florida, has cited court cases with the same type of paradox noted by some judges, and the problems of "immunity" from being prosecuted for crimes, such as murder in self-defense, versus crimes justifiable in self-defense, again, such as murder in self-defense, and, versus, justifiable acts that would otherwise be crimes but for beliefs of justifiable acts of self-defense, including justifiable homicide, instead of "justifiable murder" or immunity from prosecution for the act of murder in self-defense. The labeling quandary being dismissed as "harmless error" involving previous actions, actions resulting in a dead person, seems much more than any "harmless error".

The cited "I felt threatened by her, that's why I killed her just after we had sex", is technically similar to "First, the Third District noted that the numerous injuries to the victim (which included a stab wound to the back that punctured her lung) and the relatively minor injury to Martinez (a 1/4-inch cut to his pinky finger) were inconsistent with a theory of self-defense," with practicality seemingly given more weight in both instances, over the technicality of a genuine perceived "threat".

Didn't Peter Singer kill practical ethics?

Tadzio



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 15 of 16 [ 233 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page:




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: