Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[Kulindahr]

Ignorance, manipulation, false accusation, stupidity and selfishness is why the gun debate is futile....until you decide to start ignoring those to the far right and left of the spectrum. With that, i'm done debating. I'll just continue to watch for the next spree.

I tend to ignore those extremes. That anyone here finds me extreme merely shows they are extreme, because I'm pretty much in the center.

I just want two things: the Constitution followed, and the solutions it embodies employed.

Okay, that's really one thing. So for my other, I want Americans to act like we're a people, not a bunch of individuals all out to fuck each other. That right-wing attitude stand at least as much in the way of following the Constitution's concepts as any liberal notion.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is the centre. Practically half of Americans own guns.

The reason most people have guns is because they fear the other people who have guns.

No, most people have guns for the same reason that really wealthy people have home security systems: they hope they never need them, and really don't like spending the money on them, but they recognize that there are people out there who make such things necessary.

The bizarre thing is that the political party fighting to preserve the right that means all those people can have guns is the one most eagerly generating and feeding societal conditions that make so many people want them. I should add that to my Neil Tyson thread: countries that fail to educate and invest in science end up with societies where people need to provide for their defense against violence.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

You open with two lies.

Why should I read farther?

You have been lying and making up "facts" this whole thread. I don't know why you think saying something like this gives you any weight.
---

There has been another person arrested because of a threat with a gun to another school. All 3 of my brothers went to this school and even know they don't go there anymore, it feels scary on how close it is.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have been lying and making up "facts" this whole thread. I don't know why you think saying something like this gives you any weight.

Wrong twice.

 

[Kabluey]

Wrong twice.

I think you've lost perspective of reality here.

You aren't accepting rational arguments, discarding notable facts and statistics and cherry picking tidbits that support a weak justification for holding on to your guns.

 

[Kabluey]

No, most people have guns for the same reason that really wealthy people have home security systems: they hope they never need them, and really don't like spending the money on them, but they recognize that there are people out there who make such things necessary.

The bizarre thing is that the political party fighting to preserve the right that means all those people can have guns is the one most eagerly generating and feeding societal conditions that make so many people want them. I should add that to my Neil Tyson thread: countries that fail to educate and invest in science end up with societies where people need to provide for their defense against violence.

You get home alarms because you fear being broken in to.
It's a fear response, wanting protection.

The right have embraced guns for the same reason they embrace religion over science. It's a belief based argument.
They're capturing the irrational voter.

 

[Kabluey]

...I want Americans to act like we're a people, not a bunch of individuals all out to SHOOT each other...

Fixed it for you.
And yet somehow you disagree...

 

[Kabluey]

You plainly haven't, because your responses are generally unrelated to my posts.

Because that's how we as a society respond to problems . . . until it comes to guns. Then, the hoplophobes of the country want to isolate and penalize dependable citizens.

I have. You've been arguing for the right to point guns at people you're afraid of.

Not many dependable citizens want to be able to kill their fellow men.

In this country's conceptualization, we are all the militia. Hoplophobes recoil from that, but it is the best way to deal with the matter of weapons, which humans need until there are no more bad guys at all.

You want to kill all the bad guys?

Either you know that's not possible so you can always justify having a gun.
Or, you're not being rational.

The US is far from unique in having its populace as a militia. Compulsory military training is in countries like South Korea, Switzerland, Israel, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Singapore.

Of these, only Switzerland issues guns, and it is the only one with a gun homicide rate that approaches the USA.

Effectively, any country that has used conscription in modern history also treats its populace as a militia.

The exceptional circumstances you keep describing are not that exceptional relative to the rest of the developed world.

 

[opinterph]

It is important to recognize that requiring persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm to pass a background check carries ZERO penalty if their application is denied – unless the applicant makes false statements on the application form. The intent of the application is to determine if the applicant is eligible to purchase a firearm. There is no self-incrimination involved.

IF, however, the applicant makes a false certification, then he or she commits a crime punishable as a felony under federal law – though prosecutions for making false statements on the application are very rare.

---

So in response to Haynes, Congress amended the NFA so it would only apply to people who could lawfully possess a firearm.

Congress amended the registration process, such that only persons who may lawfully possess an NFA firearm are eligible to make application to register the firearm. If someone unlawfully possesses an NFA firearm, they are disallowed from attempting to register that firearm and consequently cannot be compelled to self-incriminate themselves as a direct result of their attempt to register said firearm. In other words, the registration process can no longer be used as an excuse to avoid prosecution for unlawful possession.

The salient points are: 1) Congress made no changes to remove the prohibition against illegal possession of an NFA firearm, and 2) The registration applicant in Haynes v. United States already had possession of the firearm – even though he was not legally entitled to possess a firearm.

So for background checks to conform to [the requirement to register NFA firearms], they can only apply to those who can lawfully possess a firearm -- and thus criminals can't be required to engage in [background checks]; in fact, anyone obtaining a firearm with criminal intent can't be required to engage in them.

The key difference between a background check and registering an NFA firearm is that the applicant in the background check does not already have possession of the firearm he or she is attempting to acquire. Background checks don’t have any material relation to unlawful possession of a firearm, because the background check is done prior to the purchaser obtaining possession.

We should also note that ordinary firearms are different from NFA firearms, in that ordinary firearms are not subject to mandatory registration. Attempting to equate a background check with required registration of NFA firearms is a false dilemma.


The key to understanding the Court’s ruling in Haynes v. United States involves the issue of a citizen’s right against self-incrimination.

The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case. This right enables a defendant to refuse to testify at a criminal trial and “privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.” [Link]

Please explain how an application to purchase a firearm would incriminate the applicant in a subsequent criminal case.

Note:​

• It is not illegal to submit an application to purchase a firearm.

• The denial of an application to purchase a firearm does not create a criminal event.

 

[thewiz]

BTW, you've been all over the world, but from your posts on JUB I doubt you've ever experienced the real world. It shows pretty well that yours is the world of privilege, the well-to-do world that sits atop the third-world country that makes up a huge chunk of the United States and doesn't see that elsewhere. In the real world, no cop is a friend, and when the government shows up it is never to help you, it's to benefit some politician or corporation.

Watching COPS and deciding that they adequately represent nearly 800,000 sworn police officers in 18,000 police agencies in the US is a little like watching Queer as Folk and thinking it represents all of the gay world. You obviously have never investigated a shooting situation or seen what happens when people shoot during an adrenaline induced critical situation. Having taught firearms and precision driving to police in the academy, I've seen relatively calm and collected individuals suddenly swerve a vehicle off the road or produce a target without holes when lights, sirens, and other pressures are added. There's a term for hunters who develop the same condition: buck fever. They could shoot the center of a target until they see an actual deer and then lay down a pattern that couldn't hit a barn.

As to your other diagnosis of my upbringing, you again totally miss the mark. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks (quite literally) and my father was a factory worker with 8 kids. He died while four of us were still at home with the oldest being 18. What I've accomplished, I've made so please go back to trying to justify threatening people with a firearm instead of demonstrating maturity and learning to discuss topics or handle situations without having to resort to a piece of metal strapped to a leg.

I've worked with police in Panama, Jamaica, Mexico and across the United States. I would suggest that you take time to explore the real world because it's not what you see on "COPS." I meet and see thousands of officers who work their asses off and are an asset to their communities. I have a good friend whose name is etched in the marble at the Police Officer's Memorial a few blocks from my house. He was killed going up to talk a guy out of a house who he knew for years (and had frequently arrested). Please don't assume to know how police are occupying forces or evil until you, perhaps, have walked a day in their shoes. Go spend 40 minutes holding a mother whose daughter just got hit by a car and is now dead; go tell a parent that their child isn't coming home; attend an autopsy for a family killed by a drunk driver and then come back and tell me how "privileged" I was or police are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Watching COPS and deciding that they adequately represent nearly 800,000 sworn police officers in 18,000 police agencies in the US is a little like watching Queer as Folk and thinking it represents all of the gay world. You obviously have never investigated a shooting situation or seen what happens when people shoot during an adrenaline induced critical situation. Having taught firearms and precision driving to police in the academy, I've seen relatively calm and collected individuals suddenly swerve a vehicle off the road or produce a target without holes when lights, sirens, and other pressures are added. There's a term for hunters who develop the same condition: buck fever. They could shoot the center of a target until they see an actual deer and then lay down a pattern that couldn't hit a barn.

As to your other diagnosis of my upbringing, you again totally miss the mark. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks (quite literally) and my father was a factory worker with 8 kids. He died while four of us were still at home with the oldest being 18. What I've accomplished, I've made so please go back to trying to justify threatening people with a firearm instead of demonstrating maturity and learning to discuss topics or handle situations without having to resort to a piece of metal strapped to a leg.

I've worked with police in Panama, Jamaica, Mexico and across the United States. I would suggest that you take time to explore the real world because it's not what you see on "COPS." I meet and see thousands of officers who work their asses off and are an asset to their communities. I have a good friend whose name is etched in the marble at the Police Officer's Memorial a few blocks from my house. He was killed going up to talk a guy out of a house who he knew for years (and had frequently arrested). Please don't assume to know how police are occupying forces or evil until you, perhaps, have walked a day in their shoes. Go spend 40 minutes holding a mother whose daughter just got hit by a car and is now dead; go tell a parent that their child isn't coming home; attend an autopsy for a family killed by a drunk driver and then come back and tell me how "privileged" I was or police are.

Then why are there still bad cops?

As long as that "thin blue line" holds to protect corruption, the summat the bottom of the cop world is still "thug". Maybe you know good cops, but they aren't the face that meets society until they clean up the rest of them: no more shooting the mentally ill because they panicked, no more shooting the family dog because he was annoying, no more dozens of bullets at one person and only a few hit, no more lying to people to manipulate them, no more paid vacations for killing someone, no more not writing tickets because it's a politician... -- just no more.

As for your examples at the end, I've been there -- drunk drivers, show-off motorcyclists, negligent asshole father leaving his shotgun out when he KNEW his daughter was suicidal.... and the kid who had to walk into a house of strangers one night because he was being stalked and the one who was terrified to leave the house because he woke up to find the family dog crucified on the yard gate and a chicken "sacrificed" on the porch, and the one who got suicidal because cops wouldn't stop yelling at him and crushing him....

Thinking on that last one, it reminds me that I've seen more cops cause PTSD in people than ever help people.

 

[Kulindahr]

You aren't accepting rational arguments, discarding notable facts and statistics and cherry picking tidbits that support a weak justification for holding on to your guns.

You just described hoplophobe discourse exactly. Arguments from the anti-gun side arise from emotion, impart magic powers to firearms, and ignore reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

You get home alarms because you fear being broken in to.
It's a fear response, wanting protection.

The right have embraced guns for the same reason they embrace religion over science. It's a belief based argument.
They're capturing the irrational voter.

It's a reason-based argument: there are human predators out there. Having a defense against them is a sensible choice.

And it's not for anyone but that person to say what that defense should be -- the only foundation for claiming any authority to tell others they can't use certain means of protection is a claim of owning them. The whole anti-gun position rests on a foundation of some sort of superiority that claims the power to tell other people how much their lives aren't worth.

One poster here at least once was honest enough to admit that the anti-gun agenda he supported meant denying people the ability to protect themselves against muggers, rapists, etc. -- because that's the actual result.

- - - Updated - - -

I have. You've been arguing for the right to point guns at people you're afraid of.

Plainly you haven't been reading my posts.

 

[Kulindahr]

---

Congress amended the registration process, such that only persons who may lawfully possess an NFA firearm are eligible to make application to register the firearm. If someone unlawfully possesses an NFA firearm, they are disallowed from attempting to register that firearm and consequently cannot be compelled to self-incriminate themselves as a direct result of their attempt to register said firearm. In other words, the registration process can no longer be used as an excuse to avoid prosecution for unlawful possession.

The salient points are: 1) Congress made no changes to remove the prohibition against illegal possession of an NFA firearm, and 2) The registration applicant in Haynes v. United States already had possession of the firearm – even though he was not legally entitled to possess a firearm.




The key difference between a background check and registering an NFA firearm is that the applicant in the background check does not already have possession of the firearm he or she is attempting to acquire. Background checks don’t have any material relation to unlawful possession of a firearm, because the background check is done prior to the purchaser obtaining possession.

We should also note that ordinary firearms are different from NFA firearms, in that ordinary firearms are not subject to mandatory registration. Attempting to equate a background check with required registration of NFA firearms is a false dilemma.


The key to understanding the Court’s ruling in Haynes v. United States involves the issue of a citizen’s right against self-incrimination.


Please explain how an application to purchase a firearm would incriminate the applicant in a subsequent criminal case.

Note:​

• It is not illegal to submit an application to purchase a firearm.

• The denial of an application to purchase a firearm does not create a criminal event.

It's difficult to find information on this because almost every source talking about the matter assumes that your final item above is false.

But taking it as true, that means that the whole background check system is just spinning of wheels, except insofar as it helps dealers keep from violating the law by not selling to prohibited persons (and at gun shows, it helps independent sellers, because dealers happily perform background checks when asked). That in itself is a worthy goal, though, since the only ones who want to sell to prohibited persons tend to be prohibited themselves.

I can't find the original source I used on this, so I'm going to have to concede the point that doing the paperwork can't be, technically, taken as incriminating. OTOH, the FBI does use the data to track attempted illegal purchases, which may not be technically incriminating but is violating the spirit of the law. On the gripping hand, many attempted purchases involve handling the weapon of interest -- and that leaves a bit of a legal limbo, because a prohibited person merely handling a firearm is, as the law is interpreted, "possession"... and that takes place before forms are filled out.

 

[evanrick]

It is the centre. Practically half of Americans own guns.

The reason most people have guns is because they fear the other people who have guns.

wrong. its because republican fear-mongering and NRA gun lobbying. ever heard of stand your ground?

gun policy is the problem.

 

[Kabluey]

You just described hoplophobe discourse exactly. Arguments from the anti-gun side arise from emotion, impart magic powers to firearms, and ignore reality.

Hoplophobe is a made-up term. It's not recognised by any medical authority.

But do I think you, specifically, shouldn't have access to guns, based on your discussions.
You've been talking about rape and victimhood if you don't have a gun, and have imagined that you'd be subject to that in places where you couldn't have your guns.
That's a very concerning paranoia. It's not healthy.

wrong. its because republican fear-mongering and NRA gun lobbying. ever heard of stand your ground?

gun policy is the problem.

Yeah, I don't disagree with you.

 

[kallipolis]

The US is far from unique in having its populace as a militia. Compulsory military training is in countries like South Korea, Switzerland, Israel, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Singapore.

Of these, only Switzerland issues guns, and it is the only one with a gun homicide rate that approaches the USA.

For your information:

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

I quote:

Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

 

[Kabluey]

For your information:

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

I quote:

That's impressively low.

 

[thewiz]

Then why are there still bad cops?

As long as that "thin blue line" holds to protect corruption, the summat the bottom of the cop world is still "thug". Maybe you know good cops, but they aren't the face that meets society until they clean up the rest of them: no more shooting the mentally ill because they panicked, no more shooting the family dog because he was annoying, no more dozens of bullets at one person and only a few hit, no more lying to people to manipulate them, no more paid vacations for killing someone, no more not writing tickets because it's a politician... -- just no more.

As for your examples at the end, I've been there -- drunk drivers, show-off motorcyclists, negligent asshole father leaving his shotgun out when he KNEW his daughter was suicidal.... and the kid who had to walk into a house of strangers one night because he was being stalked and the one who was terrified to leave the house because he woke up to find the family dog crucified on the yard gate and a chicken "sacrificed" on the porch, and the one who got suicidal because cops wouldn't stop yelling at him and crushing him....

Thinking on that last one, it reminds me that I've seen more cops cause PTSD in people than ever help people.

You paint with a pretty wide brush. Gather 800,000 people and tell me you won't have some bad apples in the group. Each of those officers averages 10 contacts with other civilians each day. Now multiply that by 365. You fear contact with evil; imagine the chances all those contacts will actually meet and deal with evil rather than imagined.

 

[Mitchymo]

It is not the far right, but near the center.

The gun debate is polarizing. There are fewer people to the centre on the issue than there ought to be. Those at the centre are capable of being reasonable.

I tend to ignore those extremes.

That is perhaps the funniest comment i've ever seen on JUB. With your accusations that those who want gun restrictions want people to be defenseless, and treat people as statistics, in disregard for the truth (making society safer), you are being extreme. The equivalent would be me saying "you want to keep your guns to compensate for being a coward". Statements which deliberately shift the focus from the truth, are extreme. You are one of the MOST guilty of it doing just that.

That anyone here finds me extreme merely shows they are extreme, because I'm pretty much in the center.

That response is akin to a child saying "NO, YOU ARE", when they've been called a name. Children lack smarts, which may explain why you hold the position to further proliferate guns in the hope of expecting things to improve, when the huge evidence, internal and external of the US shows that it is proliferation that is already causing the problem.

I just want two things: the Constitution followed, and the solutions it embodies employed.

No sir, i aint no homophobe, i just want God's word to be the law.

You want the constitution to be followed, because it favours those who like their guns. The right of self defence should be about defence, not about the means of defence. An amendment that directly states you have a right to bear arms, for self defence, protects the 'arms' as much as the people. So when the arms are the problem (effects of proliferation says they are), nothing can be done, because people become all 'but the bible says' about it (albeit in refence to the amendment).
The 2nd needs to be scrapped or re-written, the militia should be accepted as the modern police force, and the right of defence, should be explicitly about the individuals right to defend, not the method suggested.

I want Americans to act like we're a people, not a bunch of individuals all out to fuck each other.

The best place to start is accepting that some people ARE out to fuck with each other. Some people are dicks. But you don't help matters by removing trust in others generally. Walking around openly with guns, just in case, or arming school teachers, just in case, or wanting to turn all citizens into militiamen, just in case.....is paranoia ruling the mind, and distrust towards other citizens.
For the intent of the 2nd amendment, it existed in time of necessity, where the threat was not person-to-person, it was citizen to military. Its ironic how the US is becoming ever more militarized now, in an effort to combat the very thing that the 2nd was supposed to safeguard against, a relevant threat.