Yay, GUNS!

[MonDie]

I wouldn't laugh at someone who used the threat of a gun to prevent the necessity of pulling one out, it's the mark of a cautious man... I have very little patience for John Wayne wannabes who want to wave their piece around at the slightest provocation...

Now they are blaming it on violent video games...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-renews-argument-over-video-game-violence-162448882--finance.html

 

I hope you don't mind that I used two separate quotes of you to support a point of my own.

 

I don't buy into the vague idea that violent videgames make children more "violent," and I highly doubt that videogames played any role in this recent attack. However, I think it's quite possible that certain media teaches the youth to not take guns seriously... Some idiots are way too careless with their guns.

 

 

 

But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.

 

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths by Max Fisher

 

 

In other words, it's not about having the biggest gun you can have, it's about using it skillfully and respectably. The Japanese have been aware of this for a long time.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress

 

The exact wording is "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person... distress, he.. uses... insulting words... thereby causing that or another person... distress."

 

You live there, right?

 

Right, congress can't enact an unconstitutional law. The UK law against distressful insults would be banned by the first amendment. Congress can't amend the constitution. That requires 3/4rs (if I recall correctly) of state legislatures. Unlike Parliament, there are certain laws that congress just can't make. Those laws are specifically the laws that protect individuals against the wishes of the majority.

 

 

As far as I know the right to have drugs and bombs is nowhere included in the constitutional amendments.

 

You are demonstrating what I mean. You think "liberty" is something the government gives you by restraining the governed. You are free not to be shot by your neighbor. You are free not to be insulted by your neighbor. The government makes you free by withholding things from you and telling you how to behave.

 

The government makes you free by locking up Nick Griffin. You are free not to hear his views.

 

People in the US don't think that way. The idea that the government can give us a liberty by telling us what to do is confusing to people in the US.

It would be very silly for this to turn into a US vs UK argument.

 

The US and UK governments are much more similar than you seem to realise.

For example, the (roughly) equivalent crimes in the US would be intimidation or harassment. I guess they are deemed to be constitutional .

 

I do live in the UK and I know roughly the circumstances to which the law applies. It doesn't apply to general conversations etc.

If you are going to say "the exact wording is" then you should use the exact wording or you look a bit silly.

 

The government didn't lock up Nick Griffin. For the record, the courts didn't either. I guess he may have been detained while the investigations took place. He is entitled to give his views. He is not entitled to incite murder or terrorism. At least we didn't send him to Guantanamo indefinitely. It's a difference of detail.

 

Any government which enacts any law is restricting freedom. It's just that some are more open about admitting it than others.

US law, for example, restricts the freedom to commit murder.

The 18th amendment was related to drug restrictions (and not a lot else). However it's not relevant. As I pointed out, all laws disadvantage someone.

 

 

There are laws which parliament can't enact due to things like the human rights act. It could get round them by opting out of the EU legal system in much the same way that the US could change the constitution. Exactly which legal body makes the decision and how long it would take are just details.

 

Perhaps the most important thing for you to realise is that we voted for those laws (and we have the right in court to ignore them anyway "Once all the prosecution evidence has been given, the jury may at any time, of its own motion, decide to acquit the defendant." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Jury.27s_right_to_stop_the_trial )

 

The law is not what the government(s) do to us- it is what we do through our governments.

[swansont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress

 

The exact wording is "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person... distress, he.. uses... insulting words... thereby causing that or another person... distress."

 

You live there, right?

 

Right, congress can't enact an unconstitutional law. The UK law against distressful insults would be banned by the first amendment. Congress can't amend the constitution. That requires 3/4rs (if I recall correctly) of state legislatures. Unlike Parliament, there are certain laws that congress just can't make. Those laws are specifically the laws that protect individuals against the wishes of the majority.

 

I think it's interesting to have brought up the first amendment in comparison to the second. We have restrictions on speech and on religious expression. While the US doesn't have a law on "distressful insults" per se, we have libel and slander laws, among other restrictions. You have a right to religious beliefs, but there are restrictions on religious actions.

 

So why is the second amendment assumed to be inviolate when other rights are not?

 

 

As far as I know the right to have drugs and bombs is nowhere included in the constitutional amendments.

 

That's moot. A right does not have to be an enumerated right in order to exist. The basic idea behind the constitution is supposed to be that we have rights unless the government is empowered by that document to exercise some sort of control. It grants and limits the power of the government, rather than granting rights to the people.

 

[Iggy]

It would be very silly for this to turn into a US vs UK argument.

 

 

I agree. It was an analogy. I said "As an analogy...".

 

 

I think it's interesting to have brought up the first amendment in comparison to the second. We have restrictions on speech and on religious expression. While the US doesn't have a law on "distressful insults" per se, we have libel and slander laws, among other restrictions. You have a right to religious beliefs, but there are restrictions on religious actions.

 

So why is the second amendment assumed to be inviolate when other rights are not?

 

That's moot. A right does not have to be an enumerated right in order to exist. The basic idea behind the constitution is supposed to be that we have rights unless the government is empowered by that document to exercise some sort of control. It grants and limits the power of the government, rather than granting rights to the people.

 

 

No, no, no, you've taken everything wrong. I support heavy restrictions on the second amendment. I outlined some explicitly in post 271. I support restrictions on the first amendment too. I'm no more a first amendment absolutist than a second.

 

The point isn't that there are no limits to speech (I said no such thing)... the point is that harmful speech doesn't infer the ability, the necessity, or the wisdom of banning such an instance of harmful speech. It isn't an axiomatic move. It is an analogy for the second amendment where the fact that guns are harmful does not axiomatically infer the ability or the wisdom of banning them.

 

People who argue "more guns, more problems" and stop the argument there really haven't taken the argument anywhere in the US legal and political framework. I had the impression that people weren't getting, and perhaps continue to fail to get, the reasons for that.

[swansont]

Not you, specifically, Iggy, but that's the tone of the broader argument in support of the 2nd amendment — that citizens have a right to own guns, period, and no restrictions can be tolerated.

[StringJunky]

The law is not what the government(s) do to us- it is what we do through our governments.

 

This is the very essence of democracy.

[Iggy]

Again, US law is more than the statutes our representatives pass. The law is more than what we do through the government. Growing up in certain places makes such an idea foreign. Wikipedia explains,

 

According to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may pass any legislation that it wishes. By contrast, in countries with a codified constitution, the legislature is normally forbidden from passing laws that contradict that constitution: constitutional amendments require a special procedure that is more arduous than that for regular laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_supremacy_and_the_rule_of_law

 

The idea that "the law is what we do through our government" is *exactly* what the constitution means to prevent. "Our government" (by which one inevitably means the majority) is not the sole author of the law. Some choices that I can make should not be submitted to a majority opinion. I really feel that some people don't understand this aspect of the second amendment in the US

[Bill Angel]

Season's Greetings from Arizona

[John Cuthber]

Again, US law is more than the statutes our representatives pass. The law is more than what we do through the government. Growing up in certain places makes such an idea foreign. Wikipedia explains,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_supremacy_and_the_rule_of_law

 

The idea that "the law is what we do through our government" is *exactly* what the constitution means to prevent. "Our government" (by which one inevitably means the majority) is not the sole author of the law. Some choices that I can make should not be submitted to a majority opinion. I really feel that some people don't understand this aspect of the second amendment in the US

But you can change the constitution, so, while it might slow down changes, the constitution does not prevent anything.

[StringJunky]

I just watched the President's broadcast concerning gun control and I think that's as much as can be expected and what I would want him to say. It won't be his fault if it fails to cause meaningful change because he's listening and wants to act but he only has the power if he has sufficient support.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2012 by StringJunky

[Iggy]

But you can change the constitution, so, while it might slow down changes, the constitution does not prevent anything.

 

Right, the analogy would be: the rules of football can be changed, so having rules for the players doesn't prevent them from doing anything. Obviously not the case.

 

The key is that the players can't change the rules. The lawmakers can't ratify amendments to the constitution. Giving the players rules (real, enforceable limitations to their play) does indeed change the game considerably from what it would otherwise be.

[StringJunky]

 

Right, the analogy would be: the rules of football can be changed, so having rules for the players doesn't prevent them from doing anything. Obviously not the case.

 

The key is that the players can't change the rules. The lawmakers can't ratify amendments to the constitution. Giving the players rules (real, enforceable limitations to their play) does indeed change the game considerably from what it would otherwise be.

 

 

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be proposed by either:

• two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
• by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:

• the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
• state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.

 

Any amendment so ratified becomes a valid part of the Constitution, provided that no state "shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the senate," without its consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Edited December 22, 2012 by StringJunky

[Iggy]

Thank you. I wasn't sure if I had that right earlier...

 

Congress can't amend the constitution. That requires 3/4rs (if I recall correctly) of state legislatures.

[StringJunky]

What's the chances of a change in the constitution occurring...has it happened before? I'm ignorant of American politics although I've learnt a bit here recently. Is it akin to moving a mountain?

Edited December 22, 2012 by StringJunky

[Iggy]

It's happened 27 times (if you count the first 10 separately). I suppose the odds would depend on how you figure them. It might be fair to say that thousands of amendments have been proposed in congress -- 27 successfully -- so the likelihood would be in the neighborhood of one in a thousand.

 

The chance of the states annulling the second amendment is easily zero. Hopefully the chance of meaningful restrictions getting passed is significantly higher.

[StringJunky]

It's happened 27 times (if you count the first 10 separately). I suppose the odds would depend on how you figure them. It might be fair to say that thousands of amendments have been proposed in congress -- 27 successfully -- so the likelihood would be in the neighborhood of one in a thousand.

 

The chance of the states annulling the second amendment is easily zero. Hopefully the chance of meaningful restrictions getting passed is significantly higher.

 

I thought so. The restriction on assault weapons and high capacity magazines shouldn't be too difficult should it seeing as it has already been in force but expired?

Edited December 22, 2012 by StringJunky

[iNow]

It's not expired in many states, though... Like Connecticut, for example.

[Iggy]

 

I thought so. The restriction on assault weapons and high capacity magazines shouldn't be too difficult should it seeing as it has already been in force but expired?

 

Certainly possible, but I wouldn't call anything congress does easy.

 

It's not expired in many states, though... Like Connecticut, for example.

 

Did I hear right that the federal assault weapons ban wouldn't have covered the rifle he used?

 

I actually have trouble understanding the rationale of banning semiautomatic assault weapons but not hunting rifles. I heard Piers Morgan saying it the other night -- that assault weapons were the problem and not hunting rifles. Besides magazine capacity I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I actually have trouble understanding the rationale of banning semiautomatic assault weapons but not hunting rifles. I heard Piers Morgan saying it the other night -- that assault weapons were the problem and not hunting rifles. Besides magazine capacity I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference.

The only difference is that hunting rifles fire more powerful cartridges and are often heavier; they don't look nearly as scary, though.

[iNow]

Did I hear right that the federal assault weapons ban wouldn't have covered the rifle he used?

It's really quite difficult to tell for sure due to all of the loopholes and the extreme legalese and twisting of words in the bill, but we can be somewhat confident that you're correct and the ban would probably not have had any impact here.

 

 

Here's a story from right after the Aurora movie theater shooting this summer:

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/11645/batman-shooting-assault-weapons-ban-would-not-have-stopped-james-eagan-holmes

Here's the truth: despite what others have suggested over the past few days, it is highly unlikely that the renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would have changed the outcome of what took place on Friday. There are important and to gun control advocates like myself, frustrating reasons for this.

 

First, a step back: what was the ban trying to ban in the first place? Well, it's complicated. A centerpiece of the law was the novel distinction made by Congress between the intentionally broadly defined category of assault weapons and the narrower category of assault rifles. Assault weapons, according to the ban, are semiautomatic guns of any type (pistol, rifle, or shotgun), meaning they fire one shot per trigger-pull and reload themselves. Conversely, assault rifles are fully automatic rifles which fire more than one shot per trigger-pull and reload themselves. The restrictions in the Ban were placed on assault weapons and assault weapon ammunition. Assault rifles and their ammunition were, for the most part, made illegal for civilians without federal permits by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 two pieces of legislation with controversies of their own.

 

So, to be clear, the Assault Weapons Ban dealt with a very specific class of firearms and not with high-powered or high-volume guns in general.

And here's one from the Connecticut shooting.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou

Although Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has prompted renewed calls for reinstating the federal "assault weapon" ban, we know for a fact that such a law would not have stopped Adam Lanza or made his attack less deadly, because it didn't. The rifle he used, a .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. Both laws, in addition to listing specifically prohibited models, cover semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.

[Moontanman]

Assault type weapons are almost toy like, they are light, small, and deadly. I remember the first assault weapon i ever picked up, i thought it was a toy, compared to my 30.06 it was nothing, a small child could have used it easily.

 

Shooting the two is completely different as well, a .223 just pops like a toy, a 30.06 is like... hard to describe, if you are off to the side as it is fired the shock wave spreads out like an explosion, you can see it actually flattening the grass for many feet away from the gun. The concussion is palpable, firing it rapidly is difficult and requires some real determination. a .223 assault weapons isn't as powerful and feels more like a toy...

 

I don't know, it's difficult to express what i am trying to say here but the difference between the two is real, one is not made for close combat rapid fire the other is...

 

Only thing I've shot more impressive than a 30.06 was a 10 gauge slugger... WOW! doesn't quite express it but the bruises i carried around for a couple weeks after shooting it were a good reminder of just how powerful it was...

[rigney]

Assault type weapons are almost toy like, they are light, small, and deadly. I remember the first assault weapon i ever picked up, i thought it was a toy, compared to my 30.06 it was nothing, a small child could have used it easily.

 

Shooting the two is completely different as well, a .223 just pops like a toy, a 30.06 is like... hard to describe, if you are off to the side as it is fired the shock wave spreads out like an explosion, you can see it actually flattening the grass for many feet away from the gun. The concussion is palpable, firing it rapidly is difficult and requires some real determination. a .223 assault weapons isn't as powerful and feels more like a toy...

 

I don't know, it's difficult to express what i am trying to say here but the difference between the two is real, one is not made for close combat rapid fire the other is...

 

Only thing I've shot more impressive than a 30.06 was a 10 gauge slugger... WOW! doesn't quite express it but the bruises i carried around for a couple weeks after shooting it were a good reminder of just how powerful it was...

Face it Moon, probably the only thing you've helds in your hands longer than a spoon or fork has been a "toke or shine jug".

[Moontanman]

Face it Moon, probably the only thing you've helds in your hands longer than a spoon or fork has been a "toke or shine jug".

 

 

yes, you are correct, i am a total poser.... Sneak into my house in the middle of the night and find out...

[Iggy]

It's really quite difficult to tell for sure due to all of the loopholes and the extreme legalese and twisting of words in the bill, but we can be somewhat confident that you're correct and the ban would probably not have had any impact here.

 

 

Here's a story from right after the Aurora movie theater shooting this summer:

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/11645/batman-shooting-assault-weapons-ban-would-not-have-stopped-james-eagan-holmes

 

And here's one from the Connecticut shooting.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou

 

 

Thank you. I've never heard the convention the first article uses between 'rifle' and 'weapon'. The definition in the second article makes me lose confidence even more that a narrowly defined assault weapons ban would accomplish anything. A person could have a detatchable clip and pistol grip as long as they don't have a collapsing stock, grenade launcher, suppressor, and bayonet. A person could drive a mack truck through that loophole!

 

The only difference is that hunting rifles fire more powerful cartridges and are often heavier; they don't look nearly as scary, though.

 

Assault type weapons are almost toy like, they are light, small, and deadly. I remember the first assault weapon i ever picked up, i thought it was a toy, compared to my 30.06 it was nothing, a small child could have used it easily.

 

Shooting the two is completely different as well, a .223 just pops like a toy, a 30.06 is like... hard to describe, if you are off to the side as it is fired the shock wave spreads out like an explosion, you can see it actually flattening the grass for many feet away from the gun. The concussion is palpable, firing it rapidly is difficult and requires some real determination. a .223 assault weapons isn't as powerful and feels more like a toy...

 

I don't know, it's difficult to express what i am trying to say here but the difference between the two is real, one is not made for close combat rapid fire the other is...

 

Only thing I've shot more impressive than a 30.06 was a 10 gauge slugger... WOW! doesn't quite express it but the bruises i carried around for a couple weeks after shooting it were a good reminder of just how powerful it was...

 

But, surely there are small caliber hunting rifles and large caliber assault weapons.

 

AR15s are comparable in stopping power to hunting rifles firing a .243 winchester, and your .30-06 would be comparable to an AR10. It seems silly to make one illegal and not the other. A matter of looks, like the captain says.

Edited December 23, 2012 by Iggy

[StringJunky]

. A matter of looks, like the captain says.

 

Looks might matter. Maybe partly legislate to discourage the sale of weapons that look like army weapons. Just a thought. I'm thinking of perception and how it may bestow a certain 'macho' image in the eyes of some people on others and perhaps this might not be a good thing for societal health.