1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Alistair

    Alistair First Year

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    True, but self-defense is not a valid reason for firearm owership in the UK, so any issues about immediate access in an emergency are circumvented. Plus American legal system =/= UK legal system.

    Also, this condition is only really enforceable because we have firearms licensing officers who come and check security personally and can refuse to grant a certificate to own a firearm if they are not satisfied of the storage condition. It's not clear cut what constitutes 'secure' in this context so a 'professional' is called upon to make the decision. It can also vary depending on local crime rate, general security of your house, number and type of firearms etc.
     
  2. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    966
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, you can't really compare legislation in a place where it's a strictly limited government-granted privilege to one where it's a fundamental constitutional right on par with Freedom of Speech, Jury Trial, and so on.
     
  3. Alistair

    Alistair First Year

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    In the interest of Pedantry, firearm, or at least shotgun ownership is still a right, not a privilege in the UK. The relevant law (which I can't be bothered to find), specifically states that "A certificate shall be granted...", as long as the applicant fullfils the conditions (i.e no criminal record in the last 5 years, never been incarcerated longer than 3, secure storage in place.) Effictively everyone has the right unless they are specifically excluded from the right by the legislation. I expect this sort of loop hole is in place in the US as well, possibly for things such as right to vote for criminals, foreign nationals etc?
     
  4. Hw597

    Hw597 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    London
    I didn't intend to compare.
    Hell I didn't intend to even make a legislative argument.

    The current legal setup and overall relationship Americans have with guns _is_ the problem.
    Repeal the laws, ammend the constitution. Frankly do whatever u need because it isn' working.

    To me it makes far more sense to set a goal and then change whatever the hell is needed to make that reality.
    So what is the American goal?

    Because it seems strangely as if the goal is to maintain everything as is.
     
  5. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,457
    Location:
    Hbg., Germany
    I'm absolutely not interested in discussing the merits of gun control.

    That said, any best guesses if the Parkland students that are currently everywhere on my TV actually have the power to induce change? Not directly, I guess, but as some kind of movement that grows into something more? And perhaps, in a more general way, if Millenials moving up and appearing in the political sphere will change the way the conversation is lead -- what are the stats like, are younger people more likely to favour restrictions than older people?
     
  6. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,547
    In and of themselves? Absolutely not. There's way too much money involved, and protests like this are generally far too temporary, for there to be significant impact on legislation. If this was, say, October, there'd be a slim chance, but not this far from the election.

    As for the general millenial attitude toward guns, Politico, based on Pew research, claims that they're largely in favor of guns, with a supermajority in favor of concealed carry, but also tend to support things like background checks and mental-health-based restrictions, as well as being generally disdainful of the NRA as a whole.

    To draw some rough conclusions, milennials seem to tend towards being much more libertarian than previous generations, with a much greater inclination toward "just fuck off and leave me be" as a political motivator. This is echoed to a greater or lesser extent depending on the subject, but it seems to be a fairly consistent pattern, for everything from gay marriage to gun control.
     
  7. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    We're a generation full of contradictions on that front; strangely libertarian on some things, and yet favoring massive government intervention when the issue-desired-outcome intersection warrants it.

    To answer this particular question, I think they're likely to have some effect in Florida, but to fall far short of their stated objectives.
     
  8. Dagro

    Dagro Second Year

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    63
  9. Krogan

    Krogan Alien in a Hat Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    184
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Carolina
    High Score:
    2,719
    I.....I think you might be vastly overestimating what will happen in America. If Columbine/Sandy Hook/VT etc. etc. etc. didn’t produce any significant changes I sincerely doubt this will.
     
  10. Agayek

    Agayek Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,547
    This is far from the first such protest/statement. Going by historical trends, the public will have largely forgotten it happened within 2-3 months, and the various protests will have run out of steam even before that.

    It's very possible that this is the watershed, and there will be a sudden, heretofore unseen swing in prevailing public opinion toward gun control, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it. Statistically, it's a sucker bet.
     
  11. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,469
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    I'm trying to think of a time when I saw a politician do worse than Marco Rubio did during tonight's CNN forum. I'm having real difficulty.

    It was the special sort tone deafness that comes from the concurrent beliefs that you are smarter than everyone else, that you are right, and therefore you can lie about your position and get away with it.
     
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,408
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...loridas-pro-gun-policies?mbid=social_facebook
    A good article on the Florida toxic gun lobbying world if an obvious hit piece and inducing where the reader should go AND making some serious jumps of logic.

    http://theatln.tc/2GEyt0U,
    A more... generous take on why God why Rubio taking on that Townhall.
    Overly generous and focusing more on what Rubio intentions are than what he ends up doing. But it's good stuff to think a little even if its not completely true.

    Tbh all this hate on Rubio while not unwarranted, more of it should be directed at Scott. The Stand Your Ground Law is a legal abomination that any decent prosecutor and criminal lawyer would see it right away.
     
  13. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,145
    High Score:
    2,058
    ???

    Stand your ground law is pretty much the most basic common-sense law on the books. In short, Duty-to-Retreat = Blame the victim. An aggressor in any given scenario is the perpetrator, and if the person receiving such aggression believes a disparity of force to be in play and believes life or limb is at stake, then that person absolutely must have the right to defend without having to try and retreat. Duty-to-Retreat puts the potential victim at an even greater disadvantage because he or she must be able to prove that they tried to retreat and if he or she can't then that person is at risk of going to jail, all because that person was targeted for a crime. It's utter stupidity.

    Moreover, stand-your-ground is the law in around 30 states, and stand your ground applying only to house and vehicle in another three states. Stand your ground only in your own house (known as Castle Doctrine) is law in every state except Vermont (Washington DC, and a few of the territories as well). The legal precedent is pretty well set across the nation.

    So, no. The abomination of law is the one that blames the victim because that person couldn't run away fast enough and then has to prove they even tried to run away. Victim blaming is wrong. In EVERY situation.
     
  14. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Stand Your Ground laws are dangerous because the burden of proof required to make the affirmative defense is so low. Effectively, they confer the police power to deploy deadly force to a common citizen, except they have no countervailing requirement for accountability. Allowing a citizen immunity from any kind of prosecution--not criminal homicide, not negligence, not manslaughter--or civil liability, simply because they claim to have felt threatened and deployed deadly force, is a legal recipe for disaster.

    Why? Because it's ripe for abuse. In the same way that bad cops get away with negligence in their policing duties, civilians are literally getting away with murder.

    Take Florida for example. According to the Tampa Bay Times, which diligently documents the claim of SYG in courtrooms, and quoted by the Scholars Strategy Network, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to public policy research, in nearly a third of the documented cases, “defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person, or pursued their victim – and still went free.”

    That means that a third of adjudicated homicides that resulted in a vacation of the charge because of the SYG defense were, in fact, unjustified murders.

    Defense attorneys are understandably more than happy to claim SYG in the courtroom, because it's almost impossible to pierce. Instead of the defendant having to affirmatively prove that they were justified in killing a person, prosecutors effectively have to prove that they weren't, but even if they can, the defendant merely has to assert that they "felt threatened".

    If a person is armed, and defends themselves in a reasonable manner, then the argument of self-defense should suffice. Giving citizens an effectively bank check to kill one another, with virtually no legal recourse, is, as @Invictus says, a legal abomination.

    As you say, @Joe's Nemesis , victim blaming is wrong. The only problem is, in a third of cases, it's the dead guy who's the victim, and his murderer just blamed him for killing him.
     
  15. Invictus

    Invictus Totally Sirius

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,408
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    ... Then it's fine to say that the murdered person was the criminal regardless of concrete proof? The concept of self-defense is pretty basic. Who is the victim, the one who is alleging to be the victim or the freaking dead person? This is the same kind of dilapidation of innocent until proven guilty that "if the person who went forward and claimed it then of course it's true" that we see some people defending regarding rape cases.

    Murdering someone shouldn't be society's first answer to any kind of dangerous situation. Actually it's the opposite of that. That's why the State has the monopoly on violence and law enforcement are fundamental. Because you don't want people reaching for their guns any time emotions get high.

    Duty to retreat is actually quite easy to prove by any decent criminal lawyer if your client wasn't... You know, actually hunting people with their guns to execute them. But sure @Joe's Nemesis can you find me some cases where such horrible miscarriages of Justice happened? There should be a pattern to justify a law that increased in 75% claims of self defense and so many more people getting killed due to it.

    Stand your Ground got us the Trayvon Martin and the fisherman killed while climbing on his boat. Its a law that actively encourages violence as the answer and then puts a huge burden of proof on the prosecutors, who effectively have to go on trial TWICE and prove the same thing.

    Subjective feelings that almost impossible to prove shouldn't be what defines if something is justified or not. Jurors don't have the capacity to read the victim kinds during the crime. Basing legal decisions on how the jurors feel about something and not actual facts is he recipe for endless miscarriages of Justice based on personal prejudices .

    Its an abomination. Society isn't lawless wild west where guns on hand is the first answer. It's laws shouldn't reflect that either.
     
  16. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,145
    High Score:
    2,058
    So, you'd rather change the law for a third of the cases and put the other 2/3rds in jeopardy? That literally makes no sense.
     
  17. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    No. I think if their claims of self-defense are legitimate, then the standard self-defense argument should be more than sufficient. Meanwhile, the third who are murderers will receive their just desserts, and will be unable to shield themselves from what they deserve.

    What makes literally no sense is allowing murderers to go free.
     
  18. Arthellion

    Arthellion Ban(ned) Arthellion

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,068
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Isn't that the basis of our legal system? Innocent until proven guilty?
     
  19. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Sort of, but in this case, not really.

    If I charge you with murder, then it's my responsibility to prove to a jury that you killed the person. YOU as the defendant don't have to prove you didn't do it. I have to prove you did.

    BUT, if you claim self defense, YOU have to prove that you were defending yourself. That's what it means to have an 'affirmative defense', it's proactive. It's up to the prosecution to poke holes in it, but they don't have to actively prove it false.

    Then, the jury weighs the arguments. Did I prove beyond doubt that you killed the person? And If I did, did you prove beyond doubt that you were defending yourself?

    In that sense, you're innocent until proven guilty of murder, and then you have to have proven you defended yourself, otherwise you're still guilty.

    SYG defenses undermine that concept of affirmative defense, because they don't require you to prove anything, you just assert that it's true, and then the prosecution not only has to prove that you killed the person, but they also have to prove you weren't justified.
     
  20. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,145
    High Score:
    2,058
    First, the person isn't "murdered." The person is killed in self-defense. There is a giant distinction between the two. Second, yes. The baseline of the American justice system is developed from England's Blackstone formulation and restated by Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan in 1785 "That it is better on hundred guilty persons should escape than that one should suffer."

    Moreover, this entire presentation of stand-your-ground is a twist of the actual law. The actual stand-your-ground laws are subject to parity-of-force laws. As such, if a guy my age and my general health punches me, I don't get to draw my gun and shoot. Doing so would be murder even in stand-your-ground states. If a person half my age and twice my strength comes at me, then it is okay for me to draw my gun. Beyond that, if someone comes at me with a weapon, then it is also okay for me to draw my gun.
    It's not. Once again, you are confusing the concept of murder with the concept of legitimately taking another life in self-defense. Furthermore, your again arguing a strawman as we are not discussing "any kind of dangerous situation." We are discussing specific situations whereby a person presents a disparity of force AND has invoked an immediate fear of life or limb.

    Hell, according to your definition, I could have shot anyone within a ten foot radius of me the night before last because I thought I was in a dangerous situation. Of Course that is illegal. Every person in that situation, however, did not present an immediate threat of life or limb. Furthermore, most of them also did not equate to disparity of force.

    Before you argue these points, it really would be beneficial to understand the ins and outs of the laws.

    Nope. You're completely missing the point. Duty to retreat puts me at risk. If I'm retreating, then I'm having to multitask, thus paying attention to where I am going and making sure I don't trip over anything as well as keeping an eye out for moving into a place where others can get me from behind. Beyond that, I'm having to move while handling a deadly weapon. You think that is smart?

    Damn right. And good for it too. Trayvon Martin. Had he not approached a second time, he wouldn't have been shot. Period. Don't even think about justifying removing stand-your-ground with the Trayvon Martin case where the kid literally had gone into his house and then reappeared to confront. The only argument that has legitimacy in my mind in that case is whether a disparity of force was in play. But that is separate from actual stand-your-ground.

    This has literally nothing to do with the discussion. Unless, you're arguing that you want to make it easier for juries to convict people and as such, undermine the entire US justice system (and hell, why not, it's already happening in other laws).

    The wild-west never happened either, except in Hollywood. And the laws reflect the exact opposite. It reflects a society that recognizes the only way to truly have human rights is to give each and every person the parity of force through firearm ownership and the protection to use it without concern for overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves.
    --- Post automerged ---
    With that kind of twisted logic, I can only hope you never become a judge.

    Innocent literally means innocent. To prove guilty of murder, you must prove that a person murdered someone else. That is, took someone else's life away WITHOUT legitimate reason for doing so. Forcing the person to prove legitimacy is guilty until proven innocent.
     
Loading...