|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hyroglyphx writes: One of the other issues that may arise is privacy concerns. To search anything in a home would require a search warrant which also means that in order to obtain the warrant, you have to specify the places to be searched. A gun could potentially be anywhere. I'm also advocating universal registration (when I mentioned it later in my post you agreed), so in my scenario due process would allow the police to remove all registered guns in the house, probably to be returned after a specified period. If due process resulted in charges being filed then the time of the guns' return might depend on the legal outcome. Presumably if any registered gun wasn't turned over by the residents then the police could search for it. The owner would be required to file a report for any missing registered gun. If a search for registered guns was made necessary and an unregistered gun was found then it would be confiscated. But I don't think the specific proposals about registration and regulation matter much at this early stage. The main obstacle to progress is getting the gun side to accept that registration and regulation is a good thing. A secondary obstacle would be getting the gun side to accept that making guns more widely available just makes it more likely that they'll end up in the wrong hands, meaning both criminals and people who just shouldn't have guns for whatever reason. Before someone should have a gun they should have to demonstrate proficiency of use as well as proficiency of decision making. This wouldn't be just decision making in threatening situations, but also decision making about gun storage and about not cleaning guns with a bullet in the chamber and not ever placing a gun in a child's reach and on and on. Gun registration is often compared to car registration, but the nice thing about cars is that they're big and constantly driven around in public where the police can observe certain things, like whether your plates have expired, whether it has an inspection sticker, and whether your driving passes muster. Guns get stuck in drawers and closets and cabinets and are eventually forgotten. "My gosh, I put that gun there when Billy was 3 and could never reach that high, and then as he got older and taller I never thought about it again, and I guess he took it." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
One of the other issues that may arise is privacy concerns. To search anything in a home would require a search warrant which also means that in order to obtain the warrant, you have to specify the places to be searched. A gun could potentially be anywhere. This would certainly be problematic if the search were conducted not because the gun was evidence in a crime, but for other reasons because a gun can be anywhere and a search for a gun allows a search of the entire house. However when the gun is involved in a crime, the police certainly don't have to indicate that they know where the gun is when they search. They get a warrant that allows looking in any place big enough to hold the gun. Just specifying house and car is enough legally. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Percy writes: You and your wife have a fight, the police are called. The police remove the guns from the house. so in my scenario due process would allow the police to remove all registered guns in the house Explain how this would constitute 'due process'. What else, besides guns, could the police remove from the house because of a domestic violence incident. They are already likely to remove one or more of the participants and might, after a hearing, elect to apply a court order keeping them apart. But how is simply taking the guns away and keeping them any kind of due process? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My scenarios only included initial incident and final result. Between the incident and the removal naturally there would be legal proceedings.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My scenarios only included initial incident and final result. Between the incident and the removal naturally there would be legal proceedings. After which the guns would be removed from the house? Or not removed from the house? You did not even hint at any due process here. Only one possible outcome, no standards for removal or not. Fight in house => guns removed is what you stated. To make this less about what you said or did not say, what kinds of things might be considered in a hearing that decides whether the police take away your guns after a fight in your house. Just establishing probable cause to believe there was a fight? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: After which the guns would be removed from the house? Or not removed from the house? You did not even hint at any due process here. As I said, I only intended to list incident and final outcome. At the end of my Message 4799 I mention due process: "...there must be due process in place by which people can acquire guns and by which guns can be taken away."
To make this less about what you said or did not say, what kinds of things might be considered in a hearing that decides whether the police take away your guns after a fight in your house. Just establishing probable cause to believe there was a fight? I imagine the particulars of the fight would be relevant (was anyone threatened, hurt, or even sent to the hospital, did anyone pull a gun or fire a shot), as would whether this was an isolated incident or just the most recent in a series. But you're the legal eagle here - you tell us. But regardless of the details, before true progress on gun control is possible there must be agreement on certain basic principles: That guns are not an effective means of self defense, that not everyone should own guns, and that gun ownership is a right that should be accompanied by requirements of appropriate behavior enforced by law. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I imagine the particulars of the fight would be relevant (was anyone threatened, hurt, or even sent to the hospital, did anyone pull a gun or fire a shot), as would whether this was an isolated incident or just the most recent in a series. But you're the legal eagle here - you tell us. All of which are substantially more than "fight" => guns removed and possibly not returned. But this is your proposal. You should be telling us what you mean before.
But regardless of the details, before true progress on gun control is possible there must be agreement on certain basic principles: That guns are not an effective means of self defense, that not everyone should own guns, and that gun ownership is a right that should be accompanied by requirements of appropriate behavior enforced by law. In short, "I need the gun for self defense" would not be sufficient at a hearing. That's fine with me. But how about, "I have a constitutionally protected right to keep guns safely in my house and the state cannot take away my gun for any reasons less substantial than they would use to burden a woman's right to an abortion. And I already keep my guns under lock and key with ammo stored elsewhere?" Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: All of which are substantially more than "fight" => guns removed and possibly not returned. But this is your proposal. I wasn't making a proposal. I've been resisting getting into the details about gun control because I think it's necessary to reach agreement on basic principles first, but in response to prodding by Hyroglyphx I threw out a few things for, as I said at the time in Message 4799, "a discussion starting point."
You should be telling us what you mean before. So I should always anticipate what details you might ask about before you ask about them?
But how about, "I have a constitutionally protected right to keep guns safely in my house and the state cannot take away my gun for any reasons less substantial than they would take away a woman's right to an abortion. And I already keep my guns under lock and key with ammo stored elsewhere?" If you're looking for a detailed legal discussion, I'm not your guy. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So I should always anticipate what details you might ask about before you ask about them? No. But if you post. Fight with your wife -> Police take away your guns, don't be surprised if people don't anticipate any details that you might want to put there. I still don't really know what we were supposed to make out of your post. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
NoNukes writes: ...don't be surprised if people don't anticipate any details that you might want to put there. Yes, I understand, but I have to amend this a bit. It might be more accurate to say, "It's never a surprise when people don't anticipate details that were never intended nor even thought of at the time." Being as how it was "a discussion starting point," this makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for trying to nag me into a greater ability to anticipate which of my replies to other people will draw your attention so I can add more detail slanted toward your interest in things legal. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The "again" portion of this thread's title is once more proving its aptness. On Sunday in Idaho Kyle Odom shot an evangelical pastor in the head and back and fled the scene. Yesterday evening he turned up at the White House, where he was arrested by Secret Service agents. According to Idaho authorities, Odom has a history of mental illness.
So how did he ever get a gun? Silly question. Anyone who wants a gun can obviously get a gun. All the fault lies with the pastor for not packing and not keeping a close eye behind him. Odom made his manifesto public. I've only read the excerpts in this Washington Post article, but it clearly shows a mind unraveling and descending into mental illness. Odom was very intelligent, very capable, very educated. He graduated from the University of Idaho and entered a PhD program at Baylor, but soon dropped out as his mental illness took hold. The question for homeowners out there with guns in the house: What guarantee do you have that you or someone in your family or circle of friends won't descend into mental illness and before the seriousness is recognized take your gun and begin shooting people? If your gun is under one lock and your ammunition under another then that's great, but then obviously the gun is not for home defense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Pro-gun Jamie Gilt is shot by her four-year-old son in Putnam County, Florida | Daily Mail Online
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Her four-year-old son picked up a loaded .45 semi-automatic handgun from the back seat, pointed it towards his mother and pulled the trigger. ...Wells said: 'We’re satisfied that this is not a criminal shooting.' However Gilt may face criminal charges if the State Attorney's Office determine there was negligence on how the child obtained the firearm
Wouldn't that make the shooting a criminal shooting? What did Wells mean here? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Wouldn't that make the shooting a criminal shooting? What did Wells mean here?
Probably that the shooting was accidental, the kid didn't intend to shoot his mother. How he got access to the gun is criminal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Thank you for trying to nag me into a greater ability to anticipate which of my replies to other people Your lack of detail might be one of the reasons why your proposal was found unacceptable by the other poster to respond. Taking away guns simply because a fight occurred at a house really is not an acceptable idea. On the other hand, taking the guns away because the wife and husband were sniping away at each other from behind the sofa is acceptable. But that was going to happen anyway. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024