|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
The details could be argued endlessly. Reaching agreement on how to regulate the presence of guns in a household is conditional upon certain things. Here are some examples just for a discussion starting point:
Is the "one incident" threshold too low? Should it be two incidents? Three? Since some types of incidents are more serious than others, how should that factor in? Lots of things to discuss. But the important thing is reaching agreement with the gun people that some people shouldn't have guns. Some people shouldn't ever have guns, and some people go through periods when they shouldn't have guns. Once that is agreed upon then it is axiomatic that there must be due process in place by which people can acquire guns and by which guns can be taken away. This means background checks for *every* gun acquisition, including gun shows, personal sales, and even gifted or bequeathed guns. Naturally this would require universal gun registration. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix garbled second sentence. Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
My scenarios only included initial incident and final result. Between the incident and the removal naturally there would be legal proceedings.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
NoNukes writes: Your lack of detail might be one of the reasons why your proposal was found unacceptable by the other poster to respond. My lack of detail was intentional, because it wasn't a proposal. I called it a it a starting point for discussion, and you keep ignoring that. Here's what I said originally in Message 4799:
Percy in Message 4799 writes: The details could be argued endlessly. Reaching agreement on how to regulate the presence of guns in a household is conditional upon certain things. Here are some examples just for a discussion starting point: And Hyroglyphx didn't find my post unacceptable. He responded in Message 4800 saying there was only one point he disagreed with, and not because I failed to mention due process:
Hyroglyphx in Message 4800 writes: Percy writes: You own several guns, no problem. You have a party where a fight breaks out and the police are called. The police remove the guns from the house. I agree with all of them, except this one. Unless the weapon was used or brandished in the commission of a crime, and that you were one of the assailants involved, then I don't see how you are at fault if other people got in to a fight at your house. Back in Message 4806 you said, "You should be telling us what you mean before." Hyroglyphx understood my reply well enough, and I can't be expected to anticipate that you would read it too and not understand. Will you never call an end to this badgering? I'm guessing not and will await your response. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Will you ever stop taking a disagreement as badgering? Disagreeing is fine. Persistent pestering is badgering.
I don't think I continue the discussion any longer than you do. I'm just defending myself against unfounded accusations. Stop making the accusations and I'll stop responding. Besides, your being bothered by my supposed lack of clarity isn't in any way related to the topic. Send PMs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: I note here that Hydro added some detail that you did not. Of course he added detail that I didn't. That was the whole idea of outlining a discussion starting point.
The principle behind his objection is pretty much the same as the one behind mine. Your objection is that I didn't mention due process, but I did. From Message 4799:
Percy in Message 4799 writes: Once that is agreed upon then it is axiomatic that there must be due process in place by which people can acquire guns and by which guns can be taken away. You're just wrong. Stop clogging up the thread. Send me a PM. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Constitutions are suspended every day.
Perhaps you are right. Let's look at some examples of constitutions that have been suspended so far this year and evaluate whether they make good examples. Which ones are those? As if this really needs to be explained, in the context in which Ringo used the idiom "every day" it means "regularly" or "steadily," not daily, monthly or even annually. It's similar to when "all the time" is used idiomatically. You always do this - if necessary I can define "always do this" for you as used in this context. Could we just get on with a discussion of what Ringo actually meant instead of what you want to accuse him of meaning? He obviously meant that the suspension of constitutions is not an uncommon occurrence. If you think he's wrong, that the suspension of constitutions *is* an uncommon occurrence, then argue about that. You have his Wikipedia list of suspended constitutions - take a look and use that as a basis of discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Figure of speech or not, ringo's statement was an exaggeration of just how common it is to suspend the constitution. Uh, no, it wasn't. Or is this another case of everyone but you understanding precisely what was meant? How does this from your Message 4845 even make sense:
NoNukes in Message 4845 writes: Of course it is a figure of speech...Apparently "suspended every day" is a gross exaggeration. So it's both a figure of speech *and* "a gross exaggeration." At least be consistent about whether to stick to your original (and wrong) literal interpretation.
I've done that, Percy. Ringo managed to make a point about the figure of speech and I've already responded to that. Ringo responded again, and I am content to leave it at that. Why isn't that enough for you? I'm just hoping it's enough for you. If you're "content" to actually discuss the topic now, wonderful. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
ringo writes: It depends. For example, why did Hitler get away with seizing unlimited power in Germany? Because hardly anybody objected; they wanted him to have power. It wouldn't be accurate to characterize Hitler's rise to power as occurring because "hardly anybody objected." Hitler became a compromise chancellor in early 1933 after no one succeeded in gaining a majority of votes in parliament. He used the position of chancellor (and the burning of the Reichstag) to consolidate further power. After that he used his control of the police as well as violence and intimidation to extend his power, culminating in a law giving his cabinet the right to enact laws without parliamentary approval, and effectively making Hitler dictator. Over the course of time the inadvisability of overtly objecting to the Hitler regime became evident, and so if in later years it seemed as if Hitler had most Germans' enthusiastic support, especially after Germany's economic revitalization after 1935 and the successes in the early years of WWII, it doesn't mean that not enough Germans opposed his rise to power. The concerns raised during his early political years were in the end completely borne out and then some. We in America must heed Santayana at this critical time, but now I'm drifting off into the Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, so I'll stop. But I can't resist saying a little more about WWII. The blame for the totality of German defeat and the destruction of Germany is often blamed on the allied insistence on unconditional surrender. Understanding that surrender meant war crime trials for all top ranking Nazis and many lower level party members, almost all levels of German leadership saw no course but to fight on to the very end, hoping for allied discouragement if there should be a major German military success, or for new military technologies to come on line that could change the course of the war (aircraft, bombs and rockets), making it possible to end the war with Germany maintaining autonomy and retaining some its territorial gains. But that would have been a horrible conclusion because it would have left Jews in German territory at the mercy of the concentration camps. News of the extermination camps had begun leaking out of Germany since early in the war, but they hadn't been much believed and were probably not given much credit when the allies made their demand for unconditional surrender. Whatever instincts drove this demand, they were very good ones. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: And he could "use his position" because the people tacitly agreed to what he was doing - i.e. they didn't object. I guess it doesn't matter if you want to continue believing something wrong about German history in a thread about gun control, but if you want to make a point about how a constitution is not a constraint on government you would be better served to provide examples that are actually true. If you don't then people might conclude that your views are as mistaken as your history. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
And he could "use his position" because the people tacitly agreed to what he was doing - i.e. they didn't object. He used the position of chancellor (and the burning of the Reichstag) to consolidate further power. I'm trying to find ways in which we can agree. Is "they didn't object" a bit of hyperbole? If so then I have no objections. I just wanted to make clear that Hitler's rise to power was not tacitly accepted by the German people. This is from the New York Times from March 5, 1933:
quote: Hitler did win the vote, gaining 44% of the popular vote and a 52% majority in parliament (see the New York Times for March 6, 1933). --Percy Edited by Percy, : Font face.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024