The Gun Control Debate Thread

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
You still don't understand the crowded theater exception to freedom of speech at all. That exception is made because it creates an immediate risk of harm. Meaning, once you yell fire in a movie theater, no other action is needed for harm to now be created.

Your comparisons with gun regulation do not compare in any way to that exception for freedom of speech. If you want to bypass the constitution your trying to do it the wrong way because of a lack of understanding of constitutional law. The act of selling a gun without any regulation or giving a person a gun does not create a immediate risk of harm, because there has to be additional steps taken to create harm to any person. Are you understanding the difference? If you want to ignore the constitution feel free, but you're going about it the wrong way.

I disagree with your regulations too. You shouldn't blacklist people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Misdemeanor domestic violence at least in the State of Missouri doesn't even require a person to make physical contact with another person. All it means is that you placed a person in immediate apprehension of harm. Many of which cases were two people arguing and one thought they would gain an upperhand by calling the police. I could understand felony domestic violence because that requires some sort of actual physical harm being done to another person. But we already have felony laws for that reason.

I guess I can sit here and pick apart the rest of your proposals but waiting periods are fine. I don't really take issue with that. If you're going to a store to buy a guy, I can't imagine a scenario where you would need it immediately. Training is a waste of time and I think it would be abused pretextually to prevent individuals from being allowed to have a fire arm. Insurance companies already rape America, I'd prefer not to hand them another item where they can take everyone's money and almost never have to pay out on a policy.
I wasn't aware that making someone feel endangered was considered domestic violence, that seems like a ridiculous and subjective standard, that doesn't really meet the dictionary definition of violence. I still think there are levels of violence that may not qualify as felonious (although that also may vary from state to state) that are a big enough red flag to justify blacklisting from gun sales.

Training could be abused, but that isn't an excuse to ignore training. I don't think that ridiculous safety regulations are fair for abortion clinics, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't Be required to have licensed doctors that went through extensive training to do those procedures. There's around 500 deaths a year due to gun related accidents. When you have a tool that can be (and frequently is) used to take human life, skimping on the training is absolutely not an option.

I would agree that some kind of cap should be placed on gun carrier's insurance. Not that anyone writing a bill for gun control would necessarily be placing a gun owner's rights above an insurance company's bottom line. But accidental shootings are way too common to not expect a carrier to assume responsibility for the damage a gun can do. I have my issues with his car insurance is regulated, but I'm sure if a dumb 17 year old ever rear ends you, you'll be glad they're obligated to have insurance.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
If everyone in a crowded theater behaves responsibly, shouting "fire" does not create a hazard, the assumption becomes that panic could cause the audience to act in a way that's hazardous, but it clearly lacks emphasis on personal responsibility. I just don't understand why fire shouters have to be punished because the dumbass audience doesn't know how to evacuate a building.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If everyone in a crowded theater behaves responsibly, shouting "fire" does not create a hazard, the assumption becomes that panic could cause the audience to act in a way that's hazardous, but it clearly lacks emphasis on personal responsibility. I just don't understand why fire shouters have to be punished because the dumbass audience doesn't know how to evacuate a building.
I can't believe you said that.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
Training could be abused, but that isn't an excuse to ignore training. I don't think that ridiculous safety regulations are fair for abortion clinics, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't Be required to have licensed doctors that went through extensive training to do those procedures.
So sort of reminds me of Jim Crow laws with regards to voting. I don't think you can say, it's ok, they are just being done wrong.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
I wasn't aware that making someone feel endangered was considered domestic violence, that seems like a ridiculous and subjective standard, that doesn't really meet the dictionary definition of violence. I still think there are levels of violence that may not qualify as felonious (although that also may vary from state to state) that are a big enough red flag to justify blacklisting from gun sales.
565.074. 1. A person commits the crime of domestic assault in the third degree if the act involves a family or household member, including any child who is a member of the family or household, as defined in section 455.010 and:

(3) The person purposely places such family or household member in apprehension of immediate physical injury by any means; or

I point out this one because I've seen it used by prosecutors many times.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
So sort of reminds me of Jim Crow laws with regards to voting. I don't think you can say, it's ok, they are just being done wrong.
That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Comparing even stringent regulation to segregation. I know I was showing my ass a little with the crowded theatre bit, but there's no way you can compare the expectation of a gun owner being obligated to know when and how a deadly weapon should be used, and the willful exclusion of a specific race from facilities meant for whites.

It's not an unreasonable measure to assume that a gun must only be handled by people who know the basic operation, and rules for lawful use. We expect the same thing from our drivers, and every regulation (just like every Liberty) has the potential for abuse. Dismissing the whole concept because of the potential for abuse is absurd.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
565.074. 1. A person commits the crime of domestic assault in the third degree if the act involves a family or household member, including any child who is a member of the family or household, as defined in section 455.010 and:

(3) The person purposely places such family or household member in apprehension of immediate physical injury by any means; or

I point out this one because I've seen it used by prosecutors many times.
That's crazy, how could you ever disprove something so subjective? I once scared my partner because I yelled at my dog, I suppose that would qualify as DV under that criteria.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
If everyone in a crowded theater behaves responsibly, shouting "fire" does not create a hazard, the assumption becomes that panic could cause the audience to act in a way that's hazardous, but it clearly lacks emphasis on personal responsibility. I just don't understand why fire shouters have to be punished because the dumbass audience doesn't know how to evacuate a building.
That's such a moronic corruption of what I said you can't possibly have half a brain and think you have a point.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
And quote the cyclic rate of the fully automatic version when they're talking about the semi-auto
That's impossible; I was told that only conservative news coverage is biased and presents misleading facts.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Comparing even stringent regulation to segregation. I know I was showing my ass a little with the crowded theatre bit, but there's no way you can compare the expectation of a gun owner being obligated to know when and how a deadly weapon should be used, and the willful exclusion of a specific race from facilities meant for whites.
The right to vote and the right to own a firearm are both rights. Jim Crowe laws were used to prevent people from being able to exercise their right to vote. In the same fashion tests and classes would be equally used to prevent people from being able to own a gun.

Imagine if you had to take a class that cost money in order to vote? What would happen? You're proposing the same thing with a person's right to own a gun.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,706
Can't blame them. It's a touchy decision.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
Can't blame them. It's a touchy decision.
I can't ever blame a business for doimg what they think will help them be most successful. If they think a rule about no open carry guns will make their store more appealing, then I'm all for it.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,706
I can't ever blame a business for doimg what they think will help them be most successful. If they think a rule about no open carry guns will make their store more appealing, then I'm all for it.
Yep.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Good lord...why in the hell does someone need to openly carry a gun into a fast food place? I guess it is for those hard to open ketchup packets.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
The right to vote and the right to own a firearm are both rights. Jim Crowe laws were used to prevent people from being able to exercise their right to vote. In the same fashion tests and classes would be equally used to prevent people from being able to own a gun.

Imagine if you had to take a class that cost money in order to vote? What would happen? You're proposing the same thing with a person's right to own a gun.
That is the best argument I have heard against classes, insurance and registration for a firearms. I hadn't thought of that.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The right to vote and the right to own a firearm are both rights. Jim Crowe laws were used to prevent people from being able to exercise their right to vote. In the same fashion tests and classes would be equally used to prevent people from being able to own a gun.

Imagine if you had to take a class that cost money in order to vote? What would happen? You're proposing the same thing with a person's right to own a gun.
The difference is that you can't kill someone by screwing up and accidentally voting for Pat Buchanon. A person wielding a lethal weapon without the necessary training is a hazard to the public, and for the same reason that you can't let a person shout fire in a crowded theatre , you can't let a person who thinks it's okay to shoot a shoplifter out into public with a license to carry.

I don't mean to be totally dismissive of the potential here for abuse. Yes a shitty state could use fees and taxes and all that to prohibit gun ownership and just like the abortion clinics that were getting shut down by the same kind of chicanery those kinds of things can and should be overturned in court the way HB 2 was in Texas.

I know interpretarion of the wording is subjective, but if gun rights are meant explicitly to keep a well regulated militia then it's not unreasonable to expect those people who would compromise a militia be subjected to standards of training.
 

UncleMilti

This seemed like a good idea at the time.
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
17,981
Good lord...why in the hell does someone need to openly carry a gun into a fast food place? I guess it is for those hard to open ketchup packets.
I'm a big 2A guy..everyone here knows that. But I just can't get behind open carry. Not in todays world where there is a crazy ass lunatic every city block. People are afraid, and having someone walk in with a big pistol on their side scares people even more...there's just no call for it or need for it.

Besides who is the bad guy gonna take out first, the guy sitting in the corner unobtrusively putting ketchup on his fries, or the dipshit who walks in with the 3 pound Colt 45 on his side for everyone to see? I mean, its ridiculous.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
The difference is that you can't kill someone by screwing up and accidentally voting for Pat Buchanon. A person wielding a lethal weapon without the necessary training is a hazard to the public, and for the same reason that you can't let a person shout fire in a crowded theatre , you can't let a person who thinks it's okay to shoot a shoplifter out into public with a license to carry.
But owning a gun by itself creates absolutely no danger. What you're talking about is doing something additionally which is already a crime. Voting is the equivalent to owning a gun. Voting is not the equivalent to shooting that firearm. Do you understand the difference?
 
Top Bottom