"It's always too soon to talk about gun control"

[Dartz]

Why? Why should owning a firearm be a right and not a privelege?

It's a privelege here. To own a firearm, you need to be able to explain why you need it, and you need to be able to show you have somewhere to shoot it safely. Vermin control, hunting and sports are all legitimate reasons. Self defense is specifically excluded as a reason. You need to be 'of good character' - so, not a criminal. And finally, you need to have somewhere to store it, like a gun safe or similar so if your house does get broken into, the thief can't rob it or your ammunition.

What this means is, to purchase a firearm you need the following:
You need to own land, or have two people willing to sign a form saying it's OK to shoot on their land.
OR you need to be a member of a gun club.
You have to apply for a license and go through a couple of hoops.

In practice, what this does is restrict firearms to people who either have a genuine need, or a genuine interest. The fact that you normally need permission from two people to shoot, or club membership, acts as a sort of community policing. The "Mall-Ninja" sorts tend to find themselves without individuals willing to sign on the dotted line, while if you are any form of enthusiast you'll usually get support from other firearm owners.

Also. Just because you are not allowed to own a firearm exclusively for self defense, does not prohibit you from from using it in self defense. If there's a burglar in your home, you're well within your rights to paint your walls with his face. You can shoot 'em if they're on your land and Running Away if they've been harassing you (Yes, this actually happened and was a major case). The storage requirements mean it takes time to get the weapon ready. It must be loaded. Even a few minutes taken to assemble and load is the difference between a tragedy and a second though.

The net effect, therefore, is that anyone who needs or has a genuine interest in firearms can get one. It doesn't stop criminals.

It does filter out the toxic ones.

[Rajvik]

Part of it Dartz is that here in the States we have recognized that sometimes the government IS the bad guy and has to be forcibly shown the door. The purpose of the first two amendments is to provide the individual the ability to organize under the first, and them be armed under the second to a comparable level against what the government might bring against the citizen. That way if the government goes too far and say, decides that the current administration will not step down at the end of their terms, the people have not only the right, but the physical capability to remove them.

Now I'm going to ask Dartz, why does your law specifically deny you the right to own a gun specifically for protection, do not officials have ARMED security to protect them at all hours? Why should you be any less important or valuable? There is a bumper sticker over here in the states that reads "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. " It is half in jest, but not wrong. The police can't be everywhere and people do need to be able to defend themselves at something other than point blank/ hand to hand range.

[Dartz]

The majority of our police are unarmed. Armed security is, at most, incospicuous. It's not as visible as it would be in the States where you'll see a security guard with a holstered gun. It's just not done that way here.

This is, of course, based on the whole Policed by Consent model where the Police are both permitted to do their work, and recognise that they are being permitted to do their work by the good will of the people around them so don't have to get the whole hitting sticks out.

This was established in a country that had an armed inssurrection ongoing at the time - and was imposed in a rather ballsy move right in the middle of the civil war.

The Army is only there to defend the State from the outside. It doesn't do much except complain about being underpaid. Nobody hates it. Nobody specifically reveres it. It just sort of is there because it's the done thing to have an army.

The government is powerful enough to run and defend the State, but still toothless enough that a horde of people marching in the streets is enough to make it think twice before doing something.... untoward. It relies upon the good will of the people to still maintain itself - and help it defend itselt - the people can marrily grind the country to a halt without firing a single shot just by not going to work.

The government only becomes the bad guy when it is permitted to become the bad guy.

We had a referendum not to long ago. The government proposed a new amendment to the constitution which would enable the government to conduct inquiries and make findings as to peoples actions (Which is currently forbidden and was prompted by the government wanting an inquiry into why the police shot a man*) It was badly worded, such that it enabled the house to 'balance the rights of the individual with the public interest'. In theory - while it enabled the government to make findings on an inquiry, it also might enable HUAC style hearings under the guise of 'public interest'

It was defeated. The people said 'nope'.

On multiple occasions the government has attempted to change the electoral system to an FPTP one - it's been rejected multiple times. An attempt was made to abolish the Senate recently - some people wanted it dead, some didn't - it was defeated.

The Ballot Box is far more effective than the Armalite is at controlling a government.

It seems to me, however, that the US doesn't particularly have this provision - the Government just sort of agrees amongst the States to amend things without asking the actual people (Am I right?). There is, in fact, quite a bit that's dysfunctional about US democracy already.


---

*Incidentally, this was farmed out the FBI as impartial experts. The FBI faulted the Police for holding fire for as long as they did and placing themselves at risk - which was not the result the relatives of the victim wanted. It was known the victim had psychiatric issues, and nobody was particularly willing to be the one to fire the shot.

[Rajvik]

The ballot box is a wonderful thing and is used on a regular basis here, however ever hear of mob rule? It doesn't mean the mafia have taken control, let me tell you. You see sometimes with pure democracies, that the people who shape public opinion manage to take control with very few people realizing it, or as they say, the tail wags the dog.

Allow only one side of a story to be told, and spread it wide and that is all people will believe. Even when shown proof to the contrary. Don't believe me? Look at the coverage of Trump versus the coverage of Obama.

[hazard]

Mob rule appears to be easier and more common with FPTP systems than with any other democratic system. In no small part because with FPTP the only thing that matters is who has the most votes compared to everyone else in a district, as that one gets all the power. Any other system, which divide seats more proportionally depending on the number of votes cast among all districts, leaves greater difficulty when it comes to achieving and maintaining a majority, and requires party coalitions in the representative bodies of the government. This helps stabilize the situation and fractures power and ideology so it becomes harder to establish mob rule.

As to the coverage of Trump vs Obama?

You realise that the mainstream media didn't exactly give Obama a pass? And that Fox News was at best very obviously slanted against him? And that with Trump now in power that channel can't stop fellating him? And that the mainstream media are still not giving everyone else a pass and are requiring they do a good job regardless? And that the main reason everyone there are running so many segments about Trump and his administration is because even if you don't like the previous Republican governments the current one is a shitshow of incompetence, corruption and scandal?

[Dartz]

The ballot box is a wonderful thing and is used on a regular basis here, however ever hear of mob rule? It doesn't mean the mafia have taken control, let me tell you. You see sometimes with pure democracies, that the people who shape public opinion manage to take control with very few people realizing it, or as they say, the tail wags the dog.

Allow only one side of a story to be told, and spread it wide and that is all people will believe. Even when shown proof to the contrary.  Don't believe me? Look at the coverage of Trump versus the coverage of Obama.

It's about striking the right level of balance. None of which involves aiming rifles at your politicians.

Have you heard of Sinclair media group? Or the Internet Research Agency? Or pretty much everything going on about Facebook at the moment. Newspapers using their reach to inform their own political agenda isn't a new thing, either. Or for that matter, communications operators.

There are no objective news sources anymore. People only want to read the things they agree with and validate their feelings.  One thing about the State broadcaster here is that, while it does tend to be fairly stolid, dull and useless, it's news programming is fairly effective at being factual. It doesn't have to meet a shareholder agenda, or, for that matter, follow the government agenda. It just broadcasts the news.

People think it's useless, but at the same time, nobody quite wants rid of it. They just want it to be better.

I do recall quite a lot of howling at 'Obummer' from certain circles too. By no means was he given a f ree pass. Although I will say that a security failure does seem to pale into insignificance with the possibility that sitting politicians actively colluded with an 'adversary' nation in order to achieve their positions. How is that even possible?


Not to mention that your politics have become ludicrously toxic.

I had a conversation with a Republican congressman in a bar in DC and we both disagreed, politely on everything but there was still a level of mutual respect there like 'Yeah, I get 'why' you think that' even if I never could.  But you can't fucking do that anymore because if you don't agree with the most extreme people, you're not one of us and god help you if you get caught on social media.... 

As for why FPTP is borken, let me introduce votetown again. Two kinds of people live there. The Greens in the West, and the Orange in the east. We have one district that's always going to vote green, one that'll always vote orange and one that could go either way.... 




Which one do you think the politicians will pour all their campaigning and money into. It's not the 'safe' seats, that's for sure. It'll be the swing area that actually decides the election. Redistrict, and now look what happens.



 We have 2 districts that're majority orange and will always vote orange - therefore the orange government never needs to invest anything in there - just kepr blaming the greens for their problems. And one district that will only ever vote green, so doesn't get any investment because it's not necessary. The will of the electorate has basically been districted out of the process to produce a locked government.

Democracy is now broken. Legally. And everyone thinks it's working normally. Gerrymandering. Gotta love it. It's why giving the government the power to define districts is an incredibly dumb idea, especially if it's a FPTP system. The government now doesn't have to give two fucks about what the people want. It's gone beyond your ability to control except by direct action (and even then)


STV makes gerrymandering so much harder andis based on the simple assumption that while 40% of people might've voted in favour of a candidate, 60% voted against them.

None of which has anything to do with causing mass shootings, but may well be the reason why nothing is still being done about it.


You so you have your guns 'to keep the government inline'. But that's only the illusion they give you to make you think your government is still under your control when, quite clearly, it fucking isn't if it's able to do things like that without anyone being able to stop it.

[robkelk]

The ballot box is a wonderful thing and is used on a regular basis here, ...

Really? I know you have elections on a regular basis, but when was the last time you had a nationwide (not statewide) referendum?

...
Allow only one side of a story to be told, and spread it wide and that is all people will believe. Even when shown proof to the contrary. Don't believe me? Look at the coverage of Trump versus the coverage of Obama.

Yeah, nobody's purposefully misquoting the white guy to slant things a particular way, the way they did with the black guy.

[SilverFang01]

The most pernicious lie of all is that the 2nd Amendment somehow justifies the people in taking up arms against their government. The framers of the Constitution did not write in a clause that said it would be acceptable for the citizens to murder them while they went about the business of governing the new nation.

The bit about overthrowing tyrants? That comes from de Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately a lot of people do not know or care to know about their basic documents beyond the Cliff Notes version, and tend to confuse both of them quite a bit.

Which is why people like Rand Paul can say, or tweet in this case, something this stupid:
     

And then act surprised when someone actually takes them up on it.

[Bob Schroeck]

RESET! High school shooting in Florida. (Fortunately, this time no one died.)

[SilverFang01]

Please respect "gun culture"™

Naked gunman kills three in Nashville Waffle House


Using courier as a sarcasm font.

[Labster]

The poor victims were smothered and covered with bullets.

This shooting, however, can be safely blamed on Obama. After all, the perp had been arrested before for carrying guns around the White House. Although that does raise the question -- wouldn't the President be safer if everyone was allowed to carry guns at the White House?

[SilverFang01]

This? This was stupid.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/cr...540144002/

However, Reinking's father was present when those deputies came to confiscate the guns, Huston said. The father had a valid state authorization card and asked the police if he could keep the weapons. Deputies gave Reinking's father the weapons,  Huston said.

"He was allowed to do that after he assured deputies he would keep them secure and away from Travis," Huston said, referring to Reinking's father.

Huston and Nashville Police Chief Steve Anderson said they believe Reinking's father returned the weapons to Reinking.

Anderson said he believes under Illinois law, guns seized can be returned to someone who has a valid state authorization.

Anderson said he was not immediately aware of any Tennessee law Reinking would have violated by possessing guns in Nashville.

This is not the first time Reinking's father returned weapons to his son after concerns about Reinking's state of mind.

Maybe they should indict the father as an accessory to murder.

[Bob Schroeck]

Sounds like a fine and reasonable idea to me.

[hazard]

Even if it was entirely legal, that sounds like a reasonable idea to me.

[robkelk]

Maybe they should indict the father as an accessory to murder.

Accessory before the fact, no less. Assuming they have evidence that his father failed to take appropriate measures to keep the weapons secured.

[SilverFang01]

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to grant him a bond?
Waffle House shooting suspect's $2 million bond revoked


Good!

His father could also face charges
His father, Jeffrey Reinking, could potentially face charges for transferring weapons to a person knowingly prohibited from possessing them, ATF Acting Special Agent in Charge Marcus Watson said.

[robkelk]

Another opinion piece: Canada's government is clearly uninterested in finding innovative solutions to gun violence

If Canada truly wants to decrease gun violence, we must start by considering all types of gun violence — including suicides, accidents and police shootings — and rely on experts outside of law enforcement who have greater influence in potential victims' lives.

Chicago-based Cure Violence is one example of a smarter approach. The program employs ex-offenders instead of police officers to intervene and de-escalate potentially fatal conflicts in communities. Cities where this program has been implemented have seen a reduction of up to 70 per cent in shootings, violent confrontations and homicides.

Although gun homicides tend to cause the most panic publicly, approximately three-quarters of gun-related deaths in Canada are suicides, and people are three times more likely to complete suicide when they have access to a gun. This is why it's essential for doctors to take proactive measures to determine whether their patients (especially teenagers) with depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation have access to a gun, even if it's not their own gun. And to work with families to find ways to restrict that access.

[DHBirr]

Thankfully, I'm not aware of an actual shooting since the last mentioned here, but another politico has displayed extreme bad judgment and taste ... in a campaign ad that he ran on TV, no less!  

“And two things if you’re going to date one of my daughters?” Kemp asks the young man. “Respect,” Jake responds, and “a healthy appreciation for the Second Amendment, sir.”
Kemp then closes the gun, as if it was ready to fire, pointing it toward the teenager.
“We’re going to get along just fine,” Kemp says, as the young man grins anxiously.

Some of the people who weighed in to criticize this were themselves proud gun owners.  And just one of the comments attached to the linked article:

jdog- getreal said:  OMG. This is what the Republicans have come to?
Grifters. Molesters. Candidates proudly pointing weapons at people - on camera, as an ad!
Such malicious stupidity beggars belief.

*****
Considering that one dictionary definition of "carry on" is to "behave or speak in a foolish, excited, or improper manner," the designers of that famous poster, "Keep Calm and Carry On," need to make up their flippin' minds!

[robkelk]

He's an idiot.

Rule 1 for Gun Safety: Always treat it as if it's loaded.
Rule 2 for Gun Safety: Never point it at anyone (or anything) you don't intend to shoot. (Even if it's not loaded - see Rule 1.)

[Matrix Dragon]

Rule 3 of Gun Safety: Always assume it's loaded. Even if you literally just unloaded it. ALWAYS.

Fucking asshole idiot.

[hazard]

I just want to know 1 thing.

Can you be arrested and tried for reckless endangerment by pulling that stunt?


(I know the answer is going to be no, but still)

[Bob Schroeck]

Haven't you realized it by now? If a Republican does it, it's not illegal.

[hazard]

Does this mean Republicans are outlaw?

Because that would simplify a lot of things.

[DHBirr]

Does this mean Republicans are outlaw?

Because that would simplify a lot of things.

Alas, hazard, they would tell you that they're above the law.  At least if they were being honest about how they feel.  Mike Pence recently made a speech in which he described Joe Arpaio as a "tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law."  Even some Republican sites such as National Review and RedState gagged at that comment.

Red State's Sarah Quinlan offers up a detailed list of Arpaio’s abuses of the rule of law while he was the former sheriff, concluding: “Nothing about Sheriff Joe Arpaio resembles any sort of justice or law and order under the United States Constitution, and it is disgraceful for Pence to pretend otherwise.”

-----
God made me an agnostic — who are you to question His wisdom?

[SilverFang01]

Noted international arms smuggler as new president of NRA
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/politics/...index.html