Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Mar 2018, 10:25 am

So If a person does not follow the law and commit a DUI you take away the car? (Answer: no the government does not)

If a person does not follow the law and commits unlawful firing of weapons while under the influence you take away the guns? If the person is a felon, they will lose their rights of weapon ownership; just like losing their voting privileges.

Do you agree that a felon can lose voting rights and gun ownership rights due to felony conviction?

I do. I also agree that a person who has NOT committed any felony resulting in such restrictions should be allowed free and reasonable access to firearms if they so choose.

You are asking for a populace to lose rights and be treated the same as a felon. I have a problem with that way of thinking.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Mar 2018, 11:03 am

rickyp wrote:fate

Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything?

Plenty. Alcohol reduces inhibitions and impulse control.


You are so unintentionally funny!

So, drunk people are over at the gun store? That's what I asked. Any evidence of guns being sold to drunken people?

Sure, I've seen western movies too, but we are living in the 21st Century. This isn't an Eastwood movie, so do you have *any* evidence?

Alcohol is involved in more homicides across the United States compared to other substances, like heroin and cocaine. In fact, about 40 percent of convicted murderers had used alcohol before or during the crime. Excessive drinking can lead to more severe forms of violence that can quickly escalate to extremely dangerous situations. The short- and long-term effects of alcohol blur a person’s mental state, contributing to an increased risk of committing violent crimes. There are strict legal punishments in place for homicide convictions and can land you in jail for many years, or even the rest of your life.
first link below.
And most homicides involve guns... second link below.

https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/
http://www.oregonlive.com/data/2015/10/ ... auses.html


Um, are you making an argument for prohibition? How progressive of you!

Fate
Depressed people stay home, drink, and sometimes commit suicide

And older men tend to do so with guns.
If the impulse is easier to resist, because a easily pulled trigger on a gun isn't available, there would be fewer suicides.
Would that not be a good thing.


Sure, and if we could make opioids illegal, fewer people would die from overdoses. That's just logic, right?

Shouldn't responsible people take guns away from a household where there is someone struggling with depression?
There are 4 States where that is currently possible.... BTW.


No one here has argued for the mentally ill having guns.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 6:19 am

Bbauska
So If a person does not follow the law and commit a DUI you take away the car? (Answer: no the government does not)

In most states a car is impounded if there is no legally competent driver. So after a DUI cars are often impounded. In California cars may be seized.
There are a myriad of different laws on DUI. Many states take away licensing or can force the installation of ignition interlock devices, or force special license plates on drivers cars that identify them as DUI convicts.
As well, the need for insurance can eliminate DUI convicts access to a license as insurance companies will not insure repeat offenders or the cost will be so high it will force the driver off the roads.
I assume by the way that your question was about current law, and not what I think should be done. I know that 4 states have laws that allow police to seize weapons from people who have a restraining order or peace bond or whom they believe is at risk of harming others or themselves. The gun owner has the right to appeal that seizure... But at least for a while the police have removed a potential threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_dri ... ted_States

bbauska
Do you agree that a felon can lose voting rights and gun ownership rights due to felony conviction

Do I agree that is the law? Yes.
Do i agree that gun rights are being effectively restricted?
No.Besides the lack of a single comprehensive database of gun owner ship and licesning there's this ....
Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/fe ... ights.html

bbauska
You are asking for a populace to lose rights and be treated the same as a felon. I have a problem with that way of thinking

Not at all. I'm stating that i think that if gun laws were as strict as laws on vehicle ownership and operation, (they aren't) and that if they were enforced as strictly(they aren't) then there would be far fewer incidents of gun violence.
Why do I think this? Because thats the experience with drunk driving...
ew Jersey enacted the first law that specifically criminalized driving an automobile while intoxicated, in 1906. The New Jersey statute provided that "[n]o intoxicated person shall drive a motor vehicle." Violation of this provision was punishable by a fine of up to $500, or a term of up to 60 days in county jail.[18]

Early laws, such as that enacted in New Jersey, required proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified.[19] The first generally accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%. New York, for example, which had enacted a prohibition on driving while intoxicated in 1910,[20] amended this law in 1941 to provide that it would constitute prima facie evidence of intoxication when an arrested person was found to have a BAC of .15 percent or higher, as ascertained through a test administered within two hours of arrest.[21]
In 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".
In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[22]
On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.[23] In light of this push by the NTSB, and in addition to numerous media reports, many bloggers/authors have posted content addressing the Debate Surrounding Lowering the Legal Limit from 0.08% to 0.05%
.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 6:34 am

fate
So, drunk people are over at the gun store? That's what I asked.

Liar.
Here's what you wrote..I'll BOLD the relevant parts you can no longer seem to remember or even read.
Fate
Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything


Fate
so do you have *any* evidence?
Yes. You quoted it just below this statement, fool.

Fate
Um, are you making an argument for prohibition? How progressive of you

No. I'm showing how your statement about the proliferation of marijuana use having the potential to cause more DUIs should be applied to guns.
You remember?
fate
More use = more DUI


Fate
Sure, and if we could make opioids illegal, fewer people would die from overdoses. That's just logic, right

You More Use + More DUI statement applies to opiods too.
The question is how to lower usage...
In the case of cars, all kinds of laws and regulations have been effective in keeping irresponsible people away from operating vehicles.
Unfortunately the lessons haven't been applied to guns in the same fashion.
As for opiods ... they are already restricted. And most of the addiction is created by over prescribing by doctors. Doctors sold on the benefits of opiods by pharmaceutical companies, but not schooled on the dangers. There are many models for regulation of products like opiods that are better than prohibition.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 7:01 am

rickyp wrote:Not at all. I'm stating that i think that if gun laws were as strict as laws on vehicle ownership and operation, (they aren't) and that if they were enforced as strictly(they aren't) then there would be far fewer incidents of gun violence.


I *really* appreciated the history lesson on when DUI was first made illegal. *Really* added to the discussion. Maybe a history lesson on murder would be helpful too?

But, I digress.

Gun owners and vehicle owners may overlap, but the crimes of murder and DUI are not comparable.

Murder requires a plan. DUI requires drinking.

Murder involves motive. DUI requires driving.

Murder is targeted. Victims of DUI are selected by the route the driver takes, nothing more.

Now, the shooting in Florida occurred only because government failed to enforce laws. Please explain how more laws will stop the government from failing to enforce laws.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Mar 2018, 7:18 am

rickyp wrote:fate
So, drunk people are over at the gun store? That's what I asked.

Liar.
Here's what you wrote..I'll BOLD the relevant parts you can no longer seem to remember or even read.
Fate
Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything


What are you babbling about?

I’m not a liar; you’re a moron. Let’s play the bolding game!

Let's see . . . how many people do you suppose go out drinking and get sloshed, then pop over to the gun store, or produce a concealed gun and start shooting, or do anything


In other words, “then” establishes the requisite condition. I then gave a couple of scenarios. However, it all starts with “go[ing] out drinking and get[ing] sloshed.”

I’m not lying. I’m not illiterate. That’s you.

One of us needs to leave Redscape. If you won’t, I will. You will be no loss to me. Literally.

Fate
Um, are you making an argument for prohibition? How progressive of you

No. I'm showing how your statement about the proliferation of marijuana use having the potential to cause more DUIs should be applied to guns.
You remember?


Why should it be? Just because you say so? THC is an intoxicant. Guns are not.

Fate
Sure, and if we could make opioids illegal, fewer people would die from overdoses. That's just logic, right

You More Use + More DUI statement applies to opiods too.


More fatuousness.

It’s amazing how English bounces off your eyes.

Laws don’t stop illegal activity. If they did, no one would use opioids. Instead, we have a growing problem.

The question is how to lower usage...
In the case of cars, all kinds of laws and regulations have been effective in keeping irresponsible people away from operating vehicles.
Unfortunately the lessons haven't been applied to guns in the same fashion.


Guns are not helpful in getting back and forth to work. They don’t take kids to school. They won’t transport groceries home.

Cars are not helpful in the event of a home invasion. They don’t defend against animals. They don’t defend against criminals.

Drunks use cars illegally. The vast majority of drivers do not.

Criminals use guns illegally. The vast majority of the populace are not criminals.

We do not ban cars. We should not ban guns.

The differences between cars and guns: 1) Guns are constitutionally protected; 2) one cannot know when a gun will be needed; 3) there is no alternative for having a gun when it is needed. One cannot “Uber” a gun or call for an “emergency gun” via 911 and expect a reasonable response time.

You need to apologize or leave Redscape. If you won’t, I will.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 11:46 am

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936

Knives don't kill people, people with knives kill people.

Definitely a surprise to me that London would have a high murder rate.

Side note: Stop and Frisk is being used

https://newrepublic.com/article/147738/london-can-learn-new-york-crime

The lesson couldn’t be more urgent. After four young men were killed in knife attacks across the city on New Year’s Eve, London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a “significant increase in targeted stop and search” by police. “I know from personal experience that when done badly, stop and search can cause community tensions,” he wrote in the London Evening Standard in January. “But when based on real intelligence, geographically focused and performed professionally, it is a vital tool for the police to keep our communities safe.”
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 2:41 pm

Small sample size. New York's homicide rate was three times higher in 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... k-43628494
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 2:55 pm

freeman3 wrote:Small sample size. New York's homicide rate was three times higher in 2017.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... k-43628494


I agree. Trends are not encouraging. What is your view on "stop and frisk"?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 3:58 pm

If it's in compliance with the Constitution--meaning reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed AND that the person has a weapon--I have no problem with it. Otherwise, it violates the Constitution.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 5:21 pm

freeman3 wrote:If it's in compliance with the Constitution--meaning reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed AND that the person has a weapon--I have no problem with it. Otherwise, it violates the Constitution.



Our Constitution does not apply to Britain. I do understand your position, however.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 6:04 pm

I think Britain would do well to follow our example...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 10:27 pm

freeman3 wrote:I think Britain would do well to follow our example...


Surely you don't mean that. Considering the topic of this forum, and the effects of the 2nd Amendment; you must only mean the Amendments you agree with.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2018, 10:55 pm

Well, just with regard to the Fourth Amendment. As for the Second Amendment, the British should follow us only if they want more homicides.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Apr 2018, 7:43 am

Ahhh, the Constitutional line item veto.